arXiv · arXiv:1506.08615v1 [math.OC] 23 Jun 2015 Vom Fachbereich Mathematik der Technischen...

arX

iv:1

506.

0861

5v1

[m

ath.

OC

] 2

3 Ju

n 20

15

Vom Fachbereich Mathematik der Technischen Universität Kaiserslauternzur Verleihung des akademischen Grades

Doktor der Naturwissenschaften (Doctor rerum naturalium, Dr. rer. nat.)genehmigte

Dissertation*

Coercive functions from a topological

viewpoint and properties of minimizing

sets of convex functions appearing in

image restoration

René Ciak

Gutachter:

Prof. Dr. Gabriele Steidl

Prof. Dr. Gerlind Plonka–Hoch

Tag der Disputation: 9. Oktober 2014

D 386

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.08615v1

*up to minor differences, see last page

Promotionskommission

Vorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Claus Fieker, TU KaiserslauternErstgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Gabriele Steidl, TU KaiserslauternZweitgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Gerlind Plonka–Hoch, Universität GöttingenWeiterer Prüfer: Prof. Dr. Jürgen Franke, TU Kaiserslautern

Table of notation

Sets, ordered sets and level sets

A Ď B A is subset of BA Ă B A is strict subset of BN Set t1, 2, 3, . . . u of natural numbersN0 Set t0, 1, 2, 3, . . . u “ t0u Y N

R Set of real numbersR

`0 The real interval r0,`8q

C Set of complex numbers

MAXďpZq, MAXpZq (Possibly empty) set of maximal elements of an ordered set pZ,ďqmaxďpZq, maxpZq Maximum of a totally ordered set pZ,ďq really having a maximumminďpZq, minpZq Minimum of a totally ordered set pZ,ďq really having a minimum

levďτΨ, levτΨ (Lower) level set tx P X : Ψpxq ď τu of the function Ψ : X Ñ pZ,ďqlevăτΨ Strict (lower) level set tx P X : Ψpxq ă τulev“τΨ Iso-level set tx P X : Ψpxq “ τuBrpaqrds, Brpaq Closed ball tx P X : dpx, aq ď ru in a metric space pX, dqBrpaqrds, Brpaq Open ball tx P X : dpx, aq ă ruSrpaqrds, Srpaq Sphere tx P X : dpx, aq “ ruBrr} ¨ }s,Br Closed ball tx P X : }x} ď ru around 0 in a normed space pX, } ¨ }qBrr} ¨ }s,Br Open ball tx P X : }x} ă ru around 0

Srr} ¨ }s, Sr Sphere tx P X : }x} “ ru around 0

Bpnq

r paqr} ¨ }s,Bpnq

r paq Closed ball tx P Rn : }x} ď ru in pRn, } ¨ }qB

pnqr paqr} ¨ }s,Bpnq

r paq Open ball tx P Rn : }x} ă ru in pRn, } ¨ }qS

pnqr paqr} ¨ }s, Spnq

r paq Sphere tx P Rn`1 : }x} “ ru in pRn`1, } ¨ }qHďp,α Closed halfspace tx P R

n : xx, py ď αuHăp,α Open halfspace tx P Rn : xx, py ă αu

H“p,α Hyperplane tx P Rn : xx, py “ αu

domΦ Effective domain tx P X : Φpxq ă `8u of the function Φ

OP pΦ,Ψq The set tτ P R : domΦ X levτΨ “ Hu of parameters τ P R forwhich domΦ and levτΨ overlap

i

Table of notation

Topological spaces and systems of sets

pX,Oq A topological space, i.e. a set X equipped with some topology OpX8,O8q One point compactification of a topological space pX,OqUpxq Neighborhood system of the point x of a topological space pX,OqBpxq A neighborhood basis of the point x of a topological space pX,OqKpX,Oq,KpXq System of all compact subsets of a topological space pX,OqApX,Oq,ApXq System of all closed subsets of a topological space pX,OqKApX,Oq System of all compact and closed subsets of a topological space pX,OqU \ O Subspace topology tU X O : O P Ou for the subset U of a topological

space pX,OqOď Usual order topology for a totally ordered set pX,ďqTď Right order topology for a totally ordered set pX,ďqTě Left order topology for a totally ordered set pX,ďqT Right order topology for r´8,`8spR,Oq R equipped with its natural topologypRn,O�nq Rn equipped with its natural topology

Hulls and topological operations

copSq Convex hull of the set SaffpSq Affine hull of the set S

S Closure of the set SintpSq Interior of the set SintApSq Interior of the set S, relative to AripSq Relative interior intaffpSqpSq of the set SrbpSq Relative boundary SzripSq of the set S

Linear Algebra

S1 ‘ ¨ ¨ ¨ ‘ Sk Direct sum of the subsets S1, . . . , Sk of some vecotor spaceA˚ Transpose of the matrix AvT Transpose of the vector ve1, . . . , en Standard basis vectors p1, 0, . . . , 0qT, . . . , p0, 0, . . .1qT of Rn

N pAq Nullspace of the linear mapping A, resp. of the matrix ARpAq Range of the linear mapping A, resp. of the matrix A0X The trivial linear mapping 0X : X Ñ R, x ÞÑ 0

ii

Operators, functions and families of functions

F1 ZF2 Semidirect sum of the functions Fi : Xi Ñ R Y t`8u defined on sub-spaces Xi with X1 ` X2 “ X1 ‘ X2, given bypF1 ZF2qpx1 ` x2q – F1px1q ` F2px2q

|y| The vector in Rn which is derived from y “ pa, bqT P Rn`n according to|y|i –

aa2i ` b2i , i “ 1 . . . n.

∇ Gradient operator (the continuous one or a discrete one)BΦpxq Subdifferential of the function Φ at x

Φ˚ (Fenchel) conjugate function of ΦclΦ Closure of the function Φ

ιS Indicator function ιS : R Ñ R Y t`8u of S defined by

ιSpxq “#0 x P S,8 otherwise

grg Graph of the function gΓ0pXq Set of all proper convex and lower semicontinuous

functions mapping a nonempty affine subset X of Rn to r´8,`8s

iii

Summary

Many tasks in image processing can be tackled by modeling an appropriate data fidelityterm Φ : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u and then solve one of the regularized minimization problems

pP1,τ q argminxPRn

tΦpxq s.t. Ψpxq ď τu

pP2,λq argminxPRn

tΦpxq ` λΨpxqu, λ ą 0

with some function Ψ : Rn Ñ RY t`8u and a good choice of the parameter(s). Two tasksarise naturally here:

i) Study the solver sets SOLpP1,τ q and SOLpP2,λq of the minimization problems.

ii) Ensure that the minimization problems have solutions.

This thesis provides contributions to both tasks: Regarding the first task for a more specialsetting we prove that there are intervals p0, cq and p0, dq such that the setvalued curves

τ ÞÑ SOLpP1,τ q, τ P p0, cqλ ÞÑ SOLpP2,λq, λ P p0, dq

are the same, besides an order reversing parameter change g : p0, cq Ñ p0, dq. Moreoverwe show that the solver sets are changing all the time while τ runs from 0 to c and λ runsfrom d to 0.

In the presence of lower semicontinuity the second task is done if we have additionallycoercivity. We regard lower semicontinuity and coercivity from a topological point of viewand develop a new technique for proving lower semicontinuity plus coercivity. The keypoint is that a function f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s is lower semicontinuous and coercive, iff acertain continuation of f to the one point compactification of Rn is continuous with respectto the right order topology on r´8,`8s.Dropping any lower semicontinuity assumption we also prove a theorem on the coercivityof a sum of functions. More precisely, this theorem gives information on which subspacesof Rn a sum F ` G of functions F,G : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s is coercive, provided that F andG are of a certain form, namely

F “ F1 ZF2 and G “ G1 ZG2

with functions F1 : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u, F2 : X2 Ñ R Y t`8u, G1 : Y1 Ñ R Y t`8u,and G2 : Y2 Ñ R Y t`8u, where

Rn “ X1 ‘ X2 “ Y1 ‘ Y2.

For such functions the theorem basically states that F ` G is coercive on X1 ` Y1 “pX2 X Y2qK if X1 K X2, Y1 K Y2 and certain boundedness conditions hold true.

Zusammenfassung

Viele Aufgaben in der Bildverarbeitung lassen sich wie folgt angehen: Nach Modellierungeines Datenterms Φ : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u löst man eines der folgenden regularisierten Mini-mierungsprobleme

pP1,τ q argminxPRn

tΦpxq s.t. Ψpxq ď τu

pP2,λq argminxPRn

tΦpxq ` λΨpxqu, λ ą 0

mit einer Funktion Ψ : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u und jeweils gut gewähltem Parameterwert. Esstellen sich unter anderem folgende Aufgaben:

i) Untersuche die Lösungsmengen SOLpP1,τ q und SOLpP2,λq der Minimierungsprobleme.

ii) Stelle sicher, daß die Minimierungsprobleme überhaupt Lösungen besitzen.

Diese Arbeit enthält Beiträge zu beiden Aufgaben: Bezüglich der ersten Aufgabe wird (ineinem spezielleren Rahmen) die Existenz von Intervallen p0, cq und p0, dq bewiesen derart,daß die mengenwertigen Kurven

τ ÞÑ SOLpP1,τ q, τ P p0, cqλ ÞÑ SOLpP2,λq, λ P p0, dq

die selben sind, bis auf einen ordnungsumkehrenden Parameterwechsel g : p0, cq Ñ p0, dq.Desweiteren zeigen wir, daß die Lösungsmengen SOLpP1,τ q bzw. SOLpP2,λq sich die ganzeZeit ändern, während τ aufsteigend das Intervall p0, cq durchläuft bzw. λ absteigend dasIntervall p0, dq durchläuft.

Falls Halbstetigkeit von unten gegeben ist, ist die zweite Aufgabe gelöst, wenn zusätzlichKoerzivität vorliegt.

Wir betrachten in dieser Arbeit sowohl Halbstetigkeit von unten als auch Koerzivität voneinem topologischen Standpunkt. Grundlegend ist hierbei, daß eine Funktion f : Rn Ñr´8,`8s genau dann halbstetig von unten und koerziv ist, wenn eine gewisse Fortsetzungvon f auf die Einpunktkompaktifizierung von Rn stetig bzgl. der von den Halbstrahlenpa,`8s, a P r´8,`8q erzeugten Topologie ist. Hieraus wird eine neue Beweistechnik fürden gemeinsamen Nachweis von Halbstetigkeit von unten und Koerzivität entwickelt.

Desweiteren beweisen wir einen Satz über die Koerzivität der Summe zweier Funktionen,ohne Halbstetigkeit von unten vorauszusetzen. Genauer gesagt liefert dieser Satz Infor-mationen darüber auf welchen Unterräumen des Rn die Summe F ` G von FunktionenF,G : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s koerziv ist, wenn diese Funktionen von der Bauart


sind mit Funktionen F1 : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u, F2 : X2 Ñ R Y t`8u, G1 : Y1 Ñ R Y t`8u,und G2 : Y2 Ñ R Y t`8u, worin

Rn “ X1 ‘ X2 “ Y1 ‘ Y2.

Für Funktionen solchen Typs besagt der Satz im Wesentlichen, daß F ` G genau dannkoerziv auf dem Unterraum X1 `Y1 “ pX2 XY2qK ist, wenn X1 K X2, Y1 K Y2 und gewisseBeschränktheitsvoraussetzungen erfüllt sind.

vii

Contents

Table of notation i

1 Introduction and overview 11.1 Definitions, notations and conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Motivation from image processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.3 Contributions and a useful inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.3.1 A method for proving coercivity and lower semicontinuity . . . . . . 81.3.2 Properties of lower semicontinuous mappings from a topological view-

point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.3.3 Coercivity of a sum of functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.3.4 Relation between the constrained and unconstained problems for a

rather general setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.3.5 A simple but useful equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.4 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2 Coercivity and lower semicontinuity from the topological point of view 152.1 On the relation between closed and compact subsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162.2 Remarks on the topology induced by a metric space . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162.3 Creating topological spaces from given ones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.3.1 Subspaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182.3.2 Product spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.3.3 Identification or quotient spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212.3.4 One-point compactification of a topological space . . . . . . . . . . 26

2.4 Topologization of totally ordered sets and topological coercivity notions . . 282.4.1 Three topologies for totally ordered sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292.4.2 The right order topology on an inf-complete totally ordered set . . 322.4.3 Topological coercivity notions and continuity interpretations . . . . 332.4.4 Topological coercivity and boundedness below . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2.5 The topological space pr ´ 8,`8s, T q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382.5.1 A topology on r ´ 8,`8s suited for lower semicontinuous functions 392.5.2 Properties of the topological space pr ´ 8,`8s, T q . . . . . . . . . 402.5.3 Known properties of lower semicontinuous functions revisited . . . . 422.5.4 Coercivity properties versus continuity properties . . . . . . . . . . 44

ix

Contents

2.5.5 Continuous arithmetic operations in pr´8,`8s, T q . . . . . . . . . 482.6 Compact continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532.7 Application of the theory to an example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

3 Coercivity of a sum of functions 613.1 Extension of coercivity notions to broader classes of functions . . . . . . . 613.2 Normcoercive linear mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653.3 Semidirect sums and coercivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

4 Penalizers and constraints in convex problems 754.1 Unconstrained perspective versus constrained perspective . . . . . . . . . . 75

4.1.1 A kind of dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764.1.2 Definition of 0 ¨ p`8q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774.1.3 Definition of argmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

4.2 Penalizers and constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794.2.1 Relation between solvers of constrained and penalized problems . . 794.2.2 Fenchel duality relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874.2.3 Notes to Theorem 4.2.6 and to some technical assumptions . . . . . 88

4.3 Assisting theory with examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914.3.1 Convex functions and their periods space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924.3.2 Operations that preserve essentially smoothness . . . . . . . . . . . 984.3.3 Operations that preserve decomposability into a innerly strictly con-

vex and a constant part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034.3.4 Existence and direction of argminpF`Gq for certain classes of functions106

4.4 Homogeneous penalizers and constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114.4.1 Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1124.4.2 Properties of the solver sets and the relation between their parameters115

A Supplementary Linear Algebra and Analysis 127

B Supplementary Convex Analysis 131

C Elaborated details 139

Bibliography 149

x

CHAPTER 1

Introduction and overview

Outline

1.1 Definitions, notations and conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Motivation from image processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.3 Contributions and a useful inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.3.1 A method for proving coercivity and lower semicontinuity . . . . . . 8

1.3.2 Properties of lower semicontinuous mappings from a topological view-

point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.3.3 Coercivity of a sum of functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.3.4 Relation between the constrained and unconstained problems for a

rather general setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.3.5 A simple but useful equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.4 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.1 Definitions, notations and conventions

Writing A Ď B means that A is a subset of B, whereas writing A Ă B indicates that Ais a proper subset of B. A function f : X Ñ Y is genuine or non-trivial, iff X (andtherefore also Y ) is nonempty.

A (direct) decomposition of a vector space V into subspaces V1, V2 . . . Vn is a tupelpV1, V2, . . . Vnq of subspaces, such that every v P V can be written in a unique way in theform v “ v1 ` v2 ` ¨ ¨ ¨ ` vn with vi P Vi for i “ 1 . . . n. A bit sloppily but practically we willalso write V “ V1 ‘ V2 ‘ ¨ ¨ ¨ ‘ Vn and call this a (direct) decomposition or direct sum. Fora given subspace U1 of V a subspace U2 is called complementary to U1 iff V “ U1 ‘ U2.

The set of all n-tuples of real numbers is denoted by Rn, where n P N0. Note that R0,containing only the empty tupel, is the trivial real vector space. By e1, e2, ¨ ¨ ¨ , en we namethe vectors p1, 0, 0, . . . 0qT , p0, 1, 0, . . . , 0qT , . . . p0, . . . 0, 1qT , which form the standard basisof Rn. The trivial linear mapping X Ñ R, x ÞÑ 0 between a real vector space X and the

1

1. Introduction and overview

real numbers will be denoted by 0X . The nullspace (kernel) of a matrix/linear operatorA is denoted by N pAq and its range by RpAq. The transpose of a matrix A is denotedby A˚. For Euclidean vectors v we will also write vT . For a vector y “ pa, bqT P Rn`n let|y| denote the vector in Rn whose components are

aa2i ` b2i — |y|i, i “ 1 . . . n. Usually y

appears in the form y “ ∇x with a linear mapping ∇ : Rn Ñ Rn ˆ R

n modeling a discretegradient.

We also remark that, in the presence of a direct decomposition of Rn into subspaces likeRn “ X1 ‘ X2 ‘ X3, we will use the unique decomposition x “ x1 ` x2 ` x3 of x P Rn

in its components x1 P X1, x2 P X2, x3 P X3 without emphasizing the underlying directdecomposition every time. Furthermore we will use the notation S “ S1 ‘S2 ‘ ¨ ¨ ¨ ‘Sk forsubsets S, S1, . . . , Sk of Rn iff every s P S has a unique decomposition s “ s1 ` s2 ` ¨ ¨ ¨ ` skinto components sj P Sj , j P t1, . . . , ku. For convex subsets C1, C2 of Rn we have C1`C2 “C1 ‘ C2 iff affpC1q ` affpC2q “ affpC1q ‘ affpC2q, see Theorem B.11 for more details.

The convex hull of a set S Ď Rn is denoted by copSq. The affine hull of a set S Ď Rn

is named by affpSq. The (topological) closure and the interior of a set S Ď Rn will bedenoted by S and intpSq, respectively. Note that, for any subset A Ď R

n, the identity

AB “ A holds for all B Ě A that are closed subsets of Rn; in particular it does not matter

whether we form the closure of a subset A of Rn with respect to Rn or with respect toany affine supperset of A, including affpAq. The relative interior of a convex set Cwill be denoted by ripCq. The relative boundary of a convex set C will be denoted byrbpCq – CzripCq.For a totally ordered set pZ,ďq we set

MAXďpZq – tpz P Z : z is a maximum of Zu

If it is clear from the context which total order is given to Z we will shortly also writeMAXpZq. If pZ,ďq has a maximum pz then MAXďpZq “ tpzu. If pZ,ďq has no maximumthen MAXďpZq “ H.

Let R`0 – r0,`8q and let Γ0pRnq denote the set of proper, convex, closed functions

mapping Rn into the extended real numbers R Y t`8u. For nonempty, affine subsetsX Ď Rn, we define Γ0pXq in an analogous way. The closure of a convex function f :

Rn Ñ R Y t´8,`8u is denoted by clf . The closure of a proper convex function is itslower semicontinuous hull. See Theorem B.3 for some of the properties of the closureoperator. For a given function Ψ : X Ñ Z between a set X and a totally ordered setpZ,ďq we distinguish different types of level sets by the following notations:

levτΨ – levďτΨ – tx P X : Ψpxq ď τu and levăτΨ – tx P X : Ψpxq ă τu.

Usually the term “level set” refers to the first type with “ď”.

Important lower level sets are the closed balls Brpaqr} ¨ }s – tx P Rn : }x} ď ru of radiusr P r0,`8q, midpoint a P Rn with respect to a norm } ¨ }. If it is clear from the context

2


which norm is meant we use the abbreviation Brpaq. If a “ 0 we even more shortlywrite Br. For spheres Srpaqr} ¨ }s – tx P Rn : }x} “ ru and open balls Brpaqr} ¨ }s –

tx P Rn : }x} ă ru with midpoint a, radius r P r0,`8q and r P p0,`8q, respectively,we apply similar abbreviations. If more general a metric space pX, dq is given we usethe notations BR paq – tx P X : dpx, aq ă Ru,BR paq – tx P X : dpx, aq ď Ru andSRpaq – tx P X : dpx, aq “ Ru for the open ball, closed ball and sphere of radius R P R

around a P X, respectively. If X “ Rn is endowed with the usual Euclidean metric we also

will use the notations BpnqR paq – tx P Rn : }x´ a} ă Ru,Bpnq

R paq – tx P Rn : }x ´ a} ď Ruand S

pn´1qR paq – tx P Rn : }x ´ a} “ Ru. If the dimension n of the underlying Euclidean

space is clear from the context we also use the abbreviations BRpaq,BRpaq and SRpaq. Ifa “ 0 and/or r “ 1 we sometimes omit the corresponding parts of the notations and writee.g. Sr, Spaq, S or B.

Further important level sets are half-spaces and hyperplanes. We use the notations Hďp,α –

tx P Rn : xp, xy ď αu, Hąp,α – tx P Rn : xp, xy ą αu and H“

p,α – tx P Rn : xp, xy “ αu forthe closed halfspaces, the open halfspaces and hyperplanes, respectively.

The set of overlapping parameters between a set A and a family pBτ qτPT of sets Bτ

with some index set T is OP pA, pBτqτPT q – tτ P T : A X Bτ “ Hu. In this thesis we willconsider the case A “ domΦ and Bτ “ levτΨ, τ P R for functions Φ,Ψ : Rn Ñ R Y t`8uand use the notation

OP pΦ,Ψq – OP pdomΦ, plevτΨqτPRq “ tτ P R : domΦ X levτΨ “ Hu.

Furthermore, the indicator function ιS of a set S is defined by

ιSpxq –

"0 if x P S,

`8 otherwise.

For x0 P Rn the subdifferential BΨpx0q of Ψ at x0 is the set

BΨpx0q – tp P Rn : Ψpx0q ` xp, x´ x0y ď Ψpxq for all x P R

nu.

If Ψ is proper, convex and x0 P ripdomΨq, then BΨpx0q “ H.

Additionally we will need the Fenchel conjugate function of Ψ defined by

Ψ˚ppq – supxPRn

txp, xy ´ Ψpxqu.

Finally the graph of a function g is denoted by gr g.

Topological notations and notions

Definition 1.1.1. We say that a topological space pX,Oq is nonempty, iff X is nonempty.

3


Definition 1.1.2. Let U be a subset of a set X and let O be a system of subsets of X.Then we denote the system

tU X O : O P Ouabbreviated by U \ O.

If O is a topology on X then U \ O is a topology on U ; cf. also Subsection 2.3.1.

Definition 1.1.3. An open neighborhood of a point x in a topological space pX,Oq isjust a subset O P O that contains x.

A neighborhood of a point x from a topological space pX,Oq is just a subset U Ď X

containing an open neighborhood of x.

The system of all neighborhoods of x will be denoted by UrOspxq or, if the underlyingtopological space is clear from the context, simply also by Upxq.A system Bpxq of open subsets of X is called an O–neighborhood basis of a point x P X,iff every neighborhood U P Upxq contains some B P Bpxq.

We will feel free to adopt our notations for neighborhood systems according to the notationsfor the underlying topological space. For instance in the context of a topological spacepX 1,O1q we usually write U 1px1q instead of Upx1q.

Remark 1.1.4. Having a neighborhood basis Bpxq for every point x of a topological spacepX,Oq we can first reconstruct all neighborhood systems Upxq, x P X, and then also thewhole topology by means of the formulas

Upxq “ tU Ď X | DB P Bpxq : U Ě Bu and O “ tO Ď X | @x P O : O P Upxqu.

See [27, 2.9 Satz] and its proof for more details.

Regarding the following definition we note that “limit point” is really meant as limit pointand not as accumulation point.

Definition 1.1.5. A sequence pxnqnPN in a topological space pX,OXq is said to have anelement x P X as limit point iff every neighborhood of x contains almost all sequencemembers, i.e. – more formally expressed – iff

@U P Upxq DN P N @n ě N : xn P U

holds true. The set of all limit points will be denoted by OX-limnÑ`8 xn or simply bylimnÑ`8 xn, if it is clear which topology is given to X. If the sequence has at last one limitpoint we call the sequence convergent.

Definition 1.1.6. A topological space pX,Oq is called a Hausdorff space iff any twodistinct points have two disjoint open neighborhoods, i.e. for every pair of distinct pointx1, x2 P X there are open disjoint sets O1, O2 P O with x1 P O1 and x2 P O2.

4


Definition 1.1.7. A topological space pX,Oq is called compact if every covering of X bysets from O has a finite subcover.

If the topological space appears as a subspace of another space, see Subsection 2.3.1, thefollowing equivalent definition can also be used:

Definition 1.1.8. Let p pX, pOq be a topological space. A subspace pX,X \ pOq is called

compact if every open covering of X with open sets from pO has a finite subcover.

Remark 1.1.9. In some texts the word “compact” is only used for spaces that are inaddition Hausdorff spaces.

Definition 1.1.10. Let pX,Oq be a topological space. We say that K Ď X is a compactsubset of pX,Oq, iff pK,K \ Oq is a compact space. We denote the system tK Ď X :

K is a compact subset of pX,Oqu by KpppX,Oqqq or sometimes only by KpppXqqq, if it is clearwhich topology is given to X.

Similarly we denote the system of closed subsets of pX,Oq by ApppX,Oqqq or by ApppXqqq oreven only by A. Finally the system of compact and closed subsets of pX,Oq will be denotedby KApppX,Oqqq or by KApppXqqq.

Note that KApX,Oq “ KpX,Oq X ApX,Oq Ď KpX,Oq can be a strict subset of KpX,Oq,cf. Example 2.5.7.

The following definition is taken from [15, p. 146].

Definition 1.1.11. A topological space is locally compact, iff each point has at least onecompact neighborhood.

Example 1.1.12. The Euclidean space Rn, endowed with the natural topology, is not

compact, but locally compact, since B1pxq is a compact neighborhood for an arbitrary pointx P Rn.

Cf. Remark 2.2.3 for the following definition.

Definition 1.1.13. A function f : pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1q between topological spaces pX,Oqand pX 1,O1q is called continuous in x0 iff for all open neighborhoods O1

fpx0q P O1 of

fpx0q there is an open neighborhood Ox0 P O of x0 with f rOx0s Ď O1fpx0q (which is to say

Ox0 Ď f´rO1fpx0qs). We call f continuous if f is continuous in all points x P X, i.e. if

for all open sets O1 P O1 the pre-image O – f´rO1s is an open set from O.

For the next two definitions cf. e.g. [15, p. 90] and [15, p. 94].

Definition 1.1.14. A mapping g : pY,OY q Ñ pZ,OZq between topological spaces is calledopen iff every open subset of pY,OY q is mapped by g to an open subset of pZ,OZq. Analo-gously g is called closed iff every closed subset of pY,OY q is mapped by g to a closed subsetof pZ,OZq.

5


Note that a bijective mapping is open, respectively closed, iff its inverse mapping is con-tinuous.

1.2 Motivation from image processing

Many tasks in image processing such as deblurring, inpainting, removal of different kindsof noise or reconstruction of a sparse signal can be tackled by minimizing a (parametercontaining) function, designed for the respective purpose. Often this function can bewritten as a weighted sum

Φ ` λΨ

of two functions Φ,Ψ P Γ0pRnq, where Φ serves as data fidelity term and Ψ as regularizationterm which influence is controlled by the parameter λ. At this point vectors x P Rn modelgray value images, where n “ nxny is the total number of pixels.

Both the family of penalized problems

argminxPRn

pΦpxq ` λΨpxqq

and the related families of constrained problems

argminxPRn

pΦpxq s.t. Ψpxq ď τq ðñ argminxPRn

pΦpxq ` ιlevτΨq,

argminxPRn

pΨpxq s.t. Φpxq ď σq ðñ argminxPRn

pΨpxq ` ιlevσΦq

(for certain parameter ranges) are considered in the literature. Some examples are:

‚ The family of penalized problems

argminxPRn

`}Ax ´ b}22 ` λ}x}1

˘,

along with the families of constraint problems

argminxPRn

`}Ax´ b}22 s.t. }x}1 ď τ

˘ðñ argmin

xPRn

`}Ax ´ b}2 s.t. }x}1 ď τ

˘

ðñ argminxPRn

`}Ax ´ b}2 ` ιlevτ p}¨}1qpxq

˘

(LASSO problem) and

argminxPRn

`}x}1 s.t. }Ax´ b}2 ď

?σ˘

ðñ argminxPRn

`}x}1 ` ιlev?

σp}A¨´b}2qpxq˘,

(Basis pursuit denoising), cf. e.g. [25], [16], [26], [7].

6

1.2 Motivation from image processing


argminxPRn

`}Ax´ b}22 ` λ

››|∇x|››1

˘,


argminxPRn

`}Ax´ b}22 s.t.

››|∇x|››1

ď τ˘

ðñ argminxPRn

`}Ax ´ b}2 ` ιlevτ p}|∇¨|}1qpxq

˘

and

argminxPRn

`››|∇x|››1

s.t. }Ax´ b}2 ď?σ˘

ðñ argminxPRn

`››|∇x|››1

` ιlev?σp}A¨´b}2qpxq

˘,

cf. e.g. [18], [30], [29].


argminxPRn

˜nÿ

k“1

`rAxsk ´ bk logprAxskq

˘

loooooooooooooooomoooooooooooooooon—Φpxq

`λ}|∇x|}1¸,


argminxPRn

`Φpxq s.t. }|∇x|}1 ď τ

˘ðñ argmin

xPRn

`Φpxq ` ιlevτ p}|∇¨|}1qpxq

˘

and

argminxPRn

`}|∇x|}1 s.t. Φpxq ď σ

˘ðñ argmin

xPRn

`}|∇x|}1 ` ιlevσpΦp¨qqpxq

˘,

cf. e.g. [9], [23], [5].

All this minimization problems are of the form

argminpF ` Gηq (1.1)

with functions F,G P Γ0pRnq and some regularization parameter η; for η ‰ 0 the functionGη is often of the form

Gηp¨q “ GpηL¨q

with a matrix L P Rm,n and a norm Gp¨q “ } ¨ } on Rm in the penalized cases and theindicator function G “ ιlev1G in the constraint cases, respectively.

7


Two questions arise naturally: How can a good regularization parameter be chosen? Howcan argminpF `Gηq ‰ H be ensured? Regarding the first question for penalized problems

argminxPRn

`F pxq ` λ}Lx}

˘

there are for instance methods from statistics for choosing a value for λ, cf. [28], [1], [11].However, in cases where we have knowledge about the original image xorig, say in the senseof knowing a good upper bound for }Lxorig}, we can use this upper bound as value for theregularization parameter in the constrained problem

argminxPRn

pF pxq s.t. }Lpxq} ď τq.

If we have knowledge about the noise level, say in the sense of knowing approximatelyF pxorigq, we can similar choose this approximate value in the constrained problem

argminxPRn

p}Lx} s.t. F pxq ď σq.

But even if we had chosen a good parameter τ , resp. σ, the questions remains how we canfind a corresponding value for λ.

Regarding the second question it is well known that the lower semicontinous functionF `Gη — Hη has a minimizer if it is coercive, i.e. fulfills Hηpxq Ñ `8 as }x} Ñ 8. Oftenit is possible to prove coercivity of Hη by hand. Since this can be laboriously it would begood to have some easy tools which ensure coercivity of such a sum.

This thesis provides contributions to both the question on how to find for given τ a corre-sponding value λ and performs also coercivity investigations.

1.3 Contributions and a useful inequality

1.3.1 A method for proving coercivity and lower semicontinuity

As already mentioned coercivity is a usefull property for proving the existence of a mini-mizer. The defining condition Hpxq Ñ `8 as }x} Ñ `8 looks somewhat like a continuitycondition.

As we will see in Theorem 2.5.16 a lower semicontinous function H : Rn Ñ r´8,`8sis indeed coercive iff a certain extension pH : pX Ñ r´8,`8s to a compact topologicalsuperspace of Rn — X is continuous with respect to a certain topology Tď on r´8,`8s,making the latter to a compact space as well. This equivalence between the lower semi-continuity plus coercivity of the mapping H and the existence of such a certain compactcontinuation pH leads to a – as far as the author knows – new technique of proving lowersemicontinuity plus coercivity. The rough idea is as follows: Assume we know that a func-tion g : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s can be written as, say, composition g “ g2 ˝ g1 of easier functions

8

1.3 Contributions and a useful inequality

g1 : Rn Ñ Y , g2 : Y Ñ r´8,`8s, where Y is some topological space, such that each

of them allows a compact continuation pg1 : pX Ñ pY and ug2 : uY Ñ r´8,`8s. Undercertain conditions then also the existence of the needed compact continuation pg of g canbe concluded. The needed compact continuation pg is simply obtained if we can directlyform the concatenation ug2 ˝ pg1, i.e. if pY “ uY . Also if idY allows a compact continuationxidY : pY Ñ uY we are done after setting pg “ ug2˝ xidY ˝pg1. More surprising and more importantis the fact that the needed compact continuation pg also exists (under certain conditions)

if the mapping idY allows a compact continuation ŇidY : uY Ñ pY , cf. Theorem 2.6.2 andTheorem 2.6.5. Although the developed theory is quite rudimentary it is already strongenough to easily prove for example the following often applied result in image restorationwhich was indeed the starting point of my work.

Assume that the following mappings are given:

i) Two matrices / linear mappings H : Rn Ñ Rd, K : Rn Ñ Re with

N pHq X N pKq “ t0u.

ii) Two proper, lower semicontinuous and coercive mappings φ : Rd Ñ r´8,`8s,ψ : Re Ñ r´8,`8s.

Then the mapping h : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s, given by

x ÞÑ φpHxq ` ψpKxq

is lower semicontinuous and coercive. In particular the mapping h takes his infimuminf h P r´8,`8s at some point in Rn.

The corresponding proof can be found in Section 2.7.

1.3.2 Properties of lower semicontinuous mappings from a

topological viewpoint

In the previous section we have mentioned the topology T for r´8,`8s. More precisethis is the right order topology which is induced by the natural order on r´8,`8s. Thisis the natural topology for studying lower semicontinuity, since a function Rn Ñ r´8,`8sis lower semicontinuous iff it is continuous with respect to the topology T on r´8,`8s.After investigating some properties of the topological space pr´8,`8s, T q we will see inSubsection 2.5.3 that some well known (and easy to prove) properties of lower semicontinousfunctions are just special cases of common theorems from topology. For instance the generalstatement

“The concatenation g ˝ f of continuous mappings f, g is again continuous.”

9


becomes in this context the property

“The concatenation g ˝ f of a continuous mapping f with alower semicontinuous mapping g is again lower semicontinous.”

In the same way we can also regard the fact that a lower semicontinuous function f takesits infimum on every compact set: The general statement

“A continuous function maps compact sets onto compact sets”

reads in our context

“A lower semicontinous function maps compact setson sets which contain their infimum.”

1.3.3 Coercivity of a sum of functions

Theorem 3.3.6 can be used as an easy to apply tool for investigating coercivity of a sumof functions. More precisely, this theorem gives information on which subspaces of Rn asum F ` G of functions F,G : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s is coercive, provided that F and G are ofa certain form, namely


with functions F1 : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u, F2 : X2 Ñ R Y t`8u, G1 : Y1 Ñ R Y t`8u,and G2 : Y2 Ñ R Y t`8u, where

Rn “ X1 ‘ X2 “ Y1 ‘ Y2.

For such functions the theorem basically states that F ` G is coercive on X1 ` Y1 “pX2 X Y2qK if X1 K X2, Y1 K Y2 and certain boundedness conditions hold true.

If the conditions X1 K X2, Y1 K Y2 are not fulfilled there is no guarantee that F ` G iscoercive on X1 ` Y1. But at least F ` G is then still coercive on all those subspaces Z1 ofRn that are complementary to Z2 – X2 X Y2.

1.3.4 Relation between the constrained and unconstained

problems for a rather general setting

In [5] Ciak et al. considered for an underlying orthogonal decomposition Rn “ X1 ‘X2 ofRn the primal minimizations problems

pP1,τ q argminxPRn

tΦpxq s.t. }Lx} ď τu

pP2,λq argminxPRn

tΦpxq ` λ}Lx}u

10

1.4 Overview

along with the dual problems

pD1,τ q argminpPRm

tΦ˚p´L˚pq ` τ}p}˚u ,

pD2,λq argminpPRm

tΦ˚p´L˚pq s.t. }p}˚ ď λu .

The function Φ there has the special form

Φpxq “ Φpx1 ` x2q “ φpx1q,

where φ : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u is a function fulfilling some properties.

In this thesis we extend this setting by allowing a third component in the orthogonaldecomposition of Rn “ X1 ‘ X2 ‘ X3 and demand

Φpxq “ Φpx1 ` x2 ` x3q “#φpx1q if x3 “ 0,

`8 if x3 ‰ 0.

This extension can become interesting when dealing with data in a high dimensional realvector space if the data is actually contained in a lower dimensional subspace. Moreover,this extended form has the advantage that a symmetry between Φ and Φ˚ is recognizablemuch better in this extended setting as we shall see in Lemma 4.4.1.

1.3.5 A simple but useful equality

Here we want to mention Lemma A.2 from the appendix along with its preceding vividexplanation. The simple but helpful inequality presented in that lemma is

}h1} ď C}h1 ` h2}

for all h1 and h2 in subspaces X1, X2 of Rn with trivial intersection. Originally this in-equality was made and proved in the context of Lemma 4.3.11, in which proof it was twiceused for showing differentiability. However it turned out that using this inequality alsosimplifies the boundedness proof in [5, Lemma 3.1 (i)] as done in the proof of part ii) ofLemma 4.3.18. Moreover this inequality was helpful in showing convergence of a sequencewhich appeared in the proof of Lemma B.13.

1.4 Overview

This thesis consists of three parts, organized in Chapters 2, 3 and 4. In the first part wedevelop a theory giving rise to a – as far as the author knows – new technique of provinglower semicontinuity plus coercivity of functions h. The main ingredients are as follows:

‚ Equivalence of lower semicontinuity plus coercivity to the existence of a certain com-pact continuation ph of h.

11


‚ An analysis of compact continuations, giving a criteria for ensuring that a concatenatefunction h “ g ˝ f allows a compact continuation ph if g and f have a compactcontinuation pf and ug.

Having a function h : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s we can hence perform the strategy to write thismapping as composition h “ g ˝ f with mappings f and g that allow certain compactcontinuations in a first step. In a second step we can then try to get the needed extensionof h.

The first part is organized as follows: After recalling some set theoretic topology we intro-duce the right order topology for the set r´8,`8s and prove the mentioned equivalence.Then the concept of compact continuations is introduced. An application of the theory toan example concludes the first part.

The second part also deals with coercivity. However, lower semicontinuity no longer plays arole in this part. After giving definitions and developing some lemmata we address the easycase of linear mappings before moving towards the main theorem of this chapter, givinginformation on which subspaces of Rn certain sums pF1 ZF2q ` pG1 ZG2q are coercive.

In the third part we are interested in the relation between the convex constrained opti-mization problem

pP1,τ q argminxPRn

tΦpxq s.t. Ψpxq ď τu (1.2)

and the unconstrained optimization problem

pP2,λq argminxPRn

tΦpxq ` λΨpxqu, λ ě 0. (1.3)

The constrained problem (1.2) is interesting only for τ P OP pΦ,Ψq and can then berewritten as the following unconstrained one:

argminxPRn

tΦpxq ` ιlevτΨpxqu. (1.4)

In the inverse problems and machine learning context the problems (1.2) and (1.3) arereferred to as Ivanov regularization and Tichonov regularization of optimization problemsof the form argminxPRntΦpxqu.Let SOLpP‚q denote the set of solutions of problem pP‚q. While it is rather clear thatunder mild conditions on Φ and Ψ a vector x P SOLpP2,λq, λ ą 0 is also a solution of pP1,τ qexactly for τ “ Ψpxq, the opposite direction has in general no simple explicit solution. Atleast it is known that, under certain conditions, for x P SOLpP1,τ q there exists λ ě 0 suchthat x P SOLpP2,λq. This result, beeing stated in Theorem 4.2.6 and Corollary 4.2.7, canbe shown by using that the relation

R`0 BΨpxq “ BιlevΨpxqΨpxq

12

1.4 Overview

from [12, p. 245] holds true under certain conditions. This result is presented in Lemma4.2.3 and proved by using an epigraphical projection or briefly inf-projection, cf. [20, p.18+], which allows reducing the intrinsic problem to one dimension.

After developing some assisting theory we consider particular problems where

Φpxq – φpx1q and Ψ – }L ¨ } with L P Rm,n;

here x1 is the orthogonal projection of x P domΦ onto a subspace X1 of Rn and φ : X1 ÑR Y t`8u is a function which fulfills the following conditions:

i) domφ is an open subset of X1 with 0 P domφ,

ii) φ is proper, convex and lower semicontinuous as well as strictly convex and essentiallysmooth, and

iii) φ has a minimizer.

We use the dual problems to prove that in a certain interval there is a one-to-one cor-respondence between τ and λ in the sense that SOLpP1,τ q “ SOLpP2,λq exactly for thecorresponding pairs. Furthermore, given τ , the value λ is determined by λ – }p}˚, wherep is any solution of the dual problem of pP1,τ q. See Theorem 4.4.6 for more details.

The third part is organized as follows: We first deal with two ways of interpreting each ofthe minimization problems pP1,τ q and pP2,λq and show that these perspectives, though re-lated, are not equivalent in general. In Section 4.2 we state a known relation between pP1,τ qand pP2,λq for a rather general setting, see Theorem 4.2.6. In particular, we provide somenovel proofs by making use of an epigraphical projection. We also recall Fenchel’s Dualityrelation. Finally we discuss the mentioned Theorem 4.2.6 more in detail. In particular arelation between one of its regularity assumptions and Slaters Constraint Qualification isgiven. In close connection with Section 4.2 is Section 4.4, where we restrict ourselves tohomogeneous regularizers and to essentially smooth data terms, which are strictly convexon a certain subspace of Rn. We prove a relation between the parameters τ and λ such thatthe solution sets of the corresponding constrained and unconstrained problems coincide anddetermine the λ corresponding to τ by duality arguments. The intermediate Section 4.3provides some theorems and lemmata needed in the proofs of Section 4.4, some of whichare interesting in themselves. In the Appendix some useful theorems are collected. Theparts there which are not own work but are taken from the literature are clearly indicatedby giving references.

Applications can be found in Section 4 of [5]. Ideas from this chapter were also used in[24].

13

CHAPTER 2

Coercivity and lower semicontinuity

from the topological point of view

Outline

2.1 On the relation between closed and compact subsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.2 Remarks on the topology induced by a metric space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.3 Creating topological spaces from given ones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.3.1 Subspaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.3.2 Product spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.3.3 Identification or quotient spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.3.4 One-point compactification of a topological space . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.4 Topologization of totally ordered sets and topological coercivity notions . . . 28

2.4.1 Three topologies for totally ordered sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.4.2 The right order topology on an inf-complete totally ordered set . . . 33

2.4.3 Topological coercivity notions and continuity interpretations . . . . 34

2.4.4 Topological coercivity and boundedness below . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2.5 The topological space pr ´ 8,`8s,T q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

2.5.1 A topology on r ´ 8,`8s suited for lower semicontinuous functions . 40

2.5.2 Properties of the topological space pr ´ 8,`8s,T q . . . . . . . . . . 41

2.5.3 Known properties of lower semicontinuous functions revisited . . . . 43

2.5.4 Coercivity properties versus continuity properties . . . . . . . . . . . 45

2.5.5 Continuous arithmetic operations in pr´8,`8s,T q . . . . . . . . . . 49

2.6 Compact continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

2.7 Application of the theory to an example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

For convenience we will call a topological space also just “space” in this chapter.

15

2. Coercivity and lower semicontinuity from the topological point of view

2.1 On the relation between closed and compact subsets

In this section we recall a known theorem, describing the relation between compactnessand closeness.

Theorem 2.1.1.

i) Each closed subset of a compact space is compact.

ii) Each compact subset of a Hausdorff space is closed.

The subsequent proof resembles the proof of Bemerkung 2 in [14, ch. 1.8 on p. 26] andthe proof of a Lemma in [14, ch.1.8 on p. 28].

Proof. i) Let pX,OXq be a compact space and A a closed subset of this space. Let A becovered by open sets Oi P OX , i P I. Adding the open set XzA P OX to the Oi, i P I,yields an open covering of pX,OXq. Due the compactness of pX,OXq finitely many of theOi together with XzA suffice to cover X. Due to pXzAq X A “ H these finitely many Oi

must already cover A. So pA,A\ OXq is compact.ii) Let pX,OXq be a Hausdorff space and A some compact subset. For proving the closenessof A it suffices to show that each x P XzA is an interior point of XzA, i.e. that there isan open neighborhood U of x with U Ď XzA. To this end we fix x P XzA. Since pX,OXqis a Hausdorff space, there are disjoint open neighborhoods Oa P Upaq and Ua P Upxq forevery a P A. The open cover of the compact set A by the Oa, a P A has a finite subcover;i.e. there are finitely many a1, . . . , an P A with

Ťni“1Oai Ě A. The set

Şni“1 Uai is an open

neighborhood of x with

nč

i“1

Uai X A Ďnč

i“1

Uai Xnď

j“1

Oaj “nď

j“1

˜nč

i“1

Uai X Oaj

¸Ď

nď

j“1

`Uaj X Oaj

˘“ H,

i.e.Şni“1 Uai Ď XzA. So x is indeed an interior point of XzA.

We point out that even a compact topological space can have compact subsets which arenot closed. An example for this behavior is obtained when equipping the interval r´8,`8swith the right order topology, see Example 2.5.7.

2.2 Remarks on the topology induced by a metric space

In this subsection we first recall some well known facts for the topology induced by a metric.Then we recall the equivalence of metric continuity concepts and topological continuityconcepts.

16

2.3 Creating topological spaces from given ones

Definition 2.2.1. Let pX, dq be a metric space. The topology generated by the ”open“ ballsBrpxq, r ą 0, x P X, i.e. the topology

Ords – tO Ď X : O is union of ”open“ balls u,

will be called topology induced by d. If it is clear from the context we will also use theshort form O for Ords

Remark 2.2.2. The open balls Brpxq, r ą 0, x P X are really open sets from Ords.

Remark 2.2.3. Let pX, dq, pX 1, d1q be metric spaces and pX,Oq, pX 1,O1q the inducedtopological spaces. For a mapping f : X Ñ X 1 the metric continuity notions and thetopological continuity notions are the same; speaking in particular about the continuity ina single point x0 we have the equivalence of the following statements

i) f : pX, dq Ñ pX 1, d1q is continuous in x0 in the metric sense, i.e.@ε ą 0 Dδ ą 0 @x P X :

dpx, x0q ă δ ùñ d1pfpxq, fpx0qq ă ε

ii) f : pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1q is continuous in x0 in the topological sense, i.e.,for every open neighborhood O1 P O1 of fpx0q there is an open neighborhood O P Oof x0 with f rOs Ď O1 (which is to say O Ď f´rO1s).

Similarly, speaking about continuity of the whole function, we have the equivalence of thestatements

i) f : pX, dq Ñ pX 1, d1q is continuous in the metric sense, i.e.@x0 P X @ε ą 0 Dδ ą 0 @x P X :

dpx, x0q ă δ ùñ d1pfpxq, fpx0qq ă ε

ii) f : pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1q is continuous in the topological sense, i.e.@O1 P O1 : f´rO1s P O.


In this section we give a short introduction in four known ways of generating topologicalspaces from given ones:

‚ In Subsection 2.3.1 we discuss how a subset of a topological space can be made to asubspace by giving it the ”correct“ topology.

‚ In Subsection 2.3.2 we show how to equip finite products of topological spaces witha meaningful topology.

17


‚ In Subsection 2.3.3 we deal with the vivid notion of glueing a given object and howwe can formalize it in the language of topology.

‚ In Subsection 2.3.4 we extend every topological space to a compact one by addingone single new point.

In each of this four subsections we give motivations for the definition. We remark that ourmotivation for the identification topology seems to be new.

2.3.1 Subspaces

Let pX, dq be a metric space and p qX, qdq “ p qX, d| qXˆ qXq some metric subspace. After choosing

a point qx P qX Ď X and some ”radius“ r ą 0 we can think of an open ball of radius r aroundqx in two ways – on on the one hand with respect to p qX, qdq and the other hand with respectto pX, dq. Though they are different in general, they are linked via

Brpqxqrqds “tx P qX : dpx, qxq ă ru“ qX X tx P X : dpx, qxq ă ru“ qX X Brpqxqrds.

For any qxi P qX and ri ą 0, i P I we therefore haveď

iPI

Bripqxiqrqds “ qX Xď

iPI

Bripqxiqrds.

So Orp qX, qdqs “ qX \ OrpX, dqs. This gives rise to the following definition.

Definition 2.3.1. Let pX,Oq be a topological space and qX Ď X. We call p qX, qOq a sub-

space of pX,Oq, iff qO “ qX \ O. The topology qX \ O is called subspace topology forqX Ď X. To the contrary a topological space pX,Oq is called a superspace of a space

p qX, qOq, iff the latter is a subspace of the first.

The following remark illuminates that the above topology is the appropriate topology forsubsets of a already given topological space. It states that the continuity of a functionf : pX,Oq Ñ pY,Pq does not get lost by restricting its domain and by extending itscodomain:

Remark 2.3.2. Let pX,Oq be a topological space with some subspace p qX, qOq “ p qX, qX\Oqand let pY,Pq be a topological space with some superspace ppY , pPq. Then the following holdstrue for all mappings f : X Ñ Y :

i) f : pX,Oq Ñ pY,Pq is continuous ùñ f | qX : p qX, qOq Ñ pY,Pq is continuous.

ii) f : pX,Oq Ñ pY,Pq is continuous ðñ f : pX,Oq Ñ ppY , pPq is continuous.

18


2.3.2 Product spaces

Let pY1,O1q, . . . , pYn,Onq be topological spaces. We search a topology O for the Cartesianproduct Y – Y1,ˆ ¨ ¨ ¨ ˆ Yn such that for any sequence ypkq in Y the equivalence

p@i P t1, . . . , nu : ypkqi Ñ y˚

i q ðñ ypkq Ñ y˚

holds true. To this end we express the left hand side as explicit statement

@i P t1, . . . , nu @Ui P Uipy˚i q Dqki P N @k ě qki : y

pkqi P Ui (2.1)

and compare it with the explicit formulation

@U P Upy˚q Dqk P N @k ě qk : ypkq P U (2.2)

for the right–hand side. On the one hand, to guarantee “(2.2) ñ (2.1)”, we should demandthat every product U – U1 ˆ ¨ ¨ ¨ ˆ Un, where Ui P Uipy˚

i q, is already a neighborhood of

y˚. On the other hand, to guarantee “(2.2) ð (2.1)”, all those subsets qY Ď Y , which donot contain any product U1 ˆ ¨ ¨ ¨ ˆ Un with Ui P Uipy˚

i q, should be barred from beeing aneighborhood of y˚; i.e we should demand that every U P Upy˚q contains some productU1 ˆ ¨ ¨ ¨ ˆ Un of neighborhoods Ui P Uipy˚

i q. Altogether it seems reasonable to demand

U P Upy˚q : ðñ DU1 P U1py˚i q, . . . , Un P Unpy˚

nq : U Ě U1 ˆ ¨ ¨ ¨ ˆ Un

This leads to the following

Definition 2.3.3. Let pY1,O1q, pY2,O2q, . . . , pYn,Onq be finitely many topological spaces.A topology O on the Cartesian product Y1 ˆ Y2 ¨ ¨ ¨ ˆ Yn — Y is said to be the producttopology of O1,O2, . . . ,On, if one of the following equivalent conditions is fulfilled:

i) The neighborhood system Upy˚q of a point y˚ P Y exactly consists of the sets U “U1 ˆ ¨ ¨ ¨ ˆ Un, where Ui P Uipy˚

i q, i P t1, . . . , nu, and of all subsets of Y which aresupersets of these sets U .

ii) The topology O consists exactly of those subsets O Ď Y , which are of the formO1 ˆ ¨ ¨ ¨ ˆ On with any Oi P Oi, i P t1, . . . , nu, or can be written as union of sets ofthis form.

The product space pY,Oq will be denoted by

pY1 ˆ Y2 ˆ ¨ ¨ ¨ ˆ Yn,O1 � O2 � ¨ ¨ ¨ � Onqor by

pY1,O1q � pY2,O2q � ¨ ¨ ¨ � pYn,Onq.

As a shorter notation for pY,Oq � ¨ ¨ ¨ � pY,Oqloooooooooooomoooooooooooonn times

we will also write pY n,O�nq.

19


In most cases we deal with Y “ R equipped with its natural topology O “ Ords, where dis the natural metric defined by dpx, yq “ |x´ y|. The product topology O�n for Rn equalsits natural topology, i.e. the topology generated by every norm on Rn.

Remark 2.3.4. Let O1,O2,O3 be some topologies. Then we have O1 � O2 � O3 “pO1 �O2q �O3 “ O1 � pO2 �O3q, i.e. building product spaces is an associative operation.

The following remark illuminates that the above defined topology is the appropriate topol-ogy for the Cartesian product of already given topological spaces. It states that a “multi-valued” function is continuous iff its component functions are continuous.

Remark 2.3.5. A mapping f : pX,Oq Ñ pY1,O1q � pY2,O2q � ¨ ¨ ¨ � pYn,Onq, x ÞÑfpxq “ pf1pxq, f2pxq, . . . , fnpxqq is continuous if and only if all its component functionsfi : pX,Oq Ñ pYi,Oiq, i P t1, . . . nu, are continuous.

Next we state Tichonov’s Theorem for the simple case of building the product of onlyfinitely many compact spaces. For a proof see [17, Theorem 5.7 on p. 167].

Theorem 2.3.6 (Tichonov’s Theorem for finite products). The product space of finitelymany compact spaces is compact.

Remark 2.3.7. We only introduced the product space of finitely many topological spaces.Although it is possible to declare a product space also for infinitely many topological spaces,we have decided to avoid this, more complicated and harder to grasp, construction, sincewe will not need it.

We conclude this subsection with a remark showing that the order in which the actions ofbuilding subspaces and product spaces are done have no influence on the finally resultingtopological space:

Remark 2.3.8. Given two topological spaces p pX1, pO1q and p pX2, pO2q, the Cartesian product

X1 ˆ X2 of two subsets X1 Ď pX1 and X2 Ď pX2 has to be equipped with a topology. Twonatural ways of equipping X1 ˆX2 with a topology seem possible: On the one hand X1 ˆX2

can be interpreted as subset of pX1 ˆ pX2 and thus be equipped with the subspace topology

pX1 ˆ X2q \ p pO1 � pO2q.

On the other hand X1 ˆ X2 can be seen as Cartesian product of the sets X1 and X2 andthus be equipped with the product topology

pX1 \ pO1q � pX2 \ pO2q.

Luckily these topologies are actually identical since the sets

p pO1 ˆ pO2q X pX1 ˆ X2q “ p pO1 X X1q ˆ p pO2 X X2q,

where pO1 P pO1, pO2 P pO2, form a base for both topologies.

20


2.3.3 Identification or quotient spaces

In the following example let O be the natural topology of R and S – tx P R2 : }x}2 “ 1u.

Example 2.3.9. Consider the surjective and continuous mapping f : pr0, 2πs, r0, 2πs \

Oq Ñ pS, S X O�2q, given by

x ÞÑ eix “ˆcosx

sin x

˙.

The impression occurs that the straight line pr0, 2πs, r0, 2πs\Oq is transformed to the circleline pS, S \ O�2q by gluing the endpoints 0 and 2π to one and the same point p1, 0qT “fp0q “ fp2πq of the circle line. At any other point x P p0, 2πq, where nothing is glued,it seems that nothing essential changes: A small interval–like–neighborhood U 1 of fpxqseems to be just the image f rUs of some small interval–neighborhood U of x. In contrastit seems that a small interval–like–neighborhood U 1 of p1, 0qT “ fp0q “ fp2πq is obtainedfrom gluing a small neighborhood, say r0, ε1q, of 0 P r0, 2πs, with a small neighborhood, sayp2π´ ε2, 2πs, of 2π P r0, 2πs. So whatever point x1 P S we consider: It always seems that aneighborhood U 1 of x1 is build by taking a suitable Ux P Upxq, for every x with fpxq “ x1,and then getting U 1 as union of the images of the Ux, i.e. via

U 1 “ď

xPr0,2πs:fpxq“x1

f rUxs, (2.3)

or, to put it more vividly, by glueing neighborhoods Ux, x P f´rU 1s.

The next remark serves as a bridge between the previous example and the subsequentdefinition of an identifying mapping. It picks up (2.3) and shows how this naturally leadto the definition of identification topology and identifying mapping. This way of motivatingthe identification topology seems to be new.

Remark 2.3.10 (Motivation for the definition of the identification topology). Consider asurjective mapping f : pX,Oq Ñ X 1 between a topological space pX,Oq and some set X 1.Assume that there is a topology O1 on X 1 such that every neighborhood U 1 of an arbitrarilychosen point x1 results from gluing neighborhoods of all preimage points x P f´rtx1us; i.e.assume that there is a topology O1 on X 1 whose neighborhood systems fulfill

U 1px1q “"U 1 Ď X 1

ˇˇ @x P f´rtx1us DUx P Upxq : U 1 “

ď

xPf´rtx1us

f rUxs*

(2.4)

21


for every x1 P X 1. Is it then possible to describe O1 in a more direct manner? Due to thefollowing equivalences for a subset O1 Ď X 1 we can give a positive answer to this question:

O1 P O1

ðñ @x1 P O1 : O1 P U 1px1q(2.4)ðñ @x1 P O1 @x P f´rtx1us DUx P Upxq : O1 “

ď

xPf´rtx1us

f rUxs

p˚qðñ @x1 P O1 @x P f´rtx1us DĂUx P Upxq : O1 Ěď

xPf´rtx1us

f rĂUxs

ðñ @x1 P O1 @x P f´rtx1us DĂOx P Upxq X O : O1 Ě f rď

xPf´rtx1us

ĂOxs

ðñ @x1 P O1 DO P O : f´rtx1us Ď O ^ O1 Ě f rOsðñ D pO P O @x1 P O1 : f´rtx1us Ď pO ^ O1 Ě f r pOsðñ D pO P O : f´rO1s Ď pO ^ f´rO1s Ě pOðñ D pO P O : f´rO1s “ pOðñ f´rO1s P O.

Note that the harder implication ”ð” in p˚q holds true, since Ux – f´rO1s Ě ĂUx is aneighborhood for each x P f´rtx1us and fulfills f rUxs “ O1, in virtue of f ’s surjectivity.

Summarizing we can say that necessarily

O1 “ O1 Ď X 1 : f´rO1s P O

(.

This motivates the following definition. Take note, though, that we did not prove that thetopology

O1 Ď X 1 : f´rO1s P O

(actually induces neighborhood systems which fulfill (2.4).

Definition 2.3.11. We say that a mapping f : pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1q between two topologicalspaces pX,Oq and pX 1,O1q is identifying or that it glues pppX,Oqqq to pppX 111,O111qqq, iff it issurjective and

O1 “ tO1 Ď X 1 : f´rO1s P Ou.

The topology O1 is called quotient topology or identification topology induced byf and O and pX 1,O1q is called the quotient space or identification space inducedby f and O.

The identification topology is uniquely determined by the surjective mapping f , cf. Remark2.3.12.

Remark 2.3.12. If a topological space pX,Oq is glued to a topological space pX 1,O1q by amapping g then the, by definition surjective, mapping g is in particular continuous; to see

22


this just compare

g is continuous ðñ`@S 1 Ď X 1 : S 1 P OX1 ùñ g´rS 1s P OX

˘

with

g is identifying ðñ`@S 1 Ď X 1 : S 1 P OX1 ðñ g´rS 1s P OX

˘

ðñ ^ g is surjective.

More precisely one can read from the above lines, that a surjective mapping g glues atopological space pX,Oq to a topological space pX 1,O1q, iff O1 is the finest topology on X 1

for which g : pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1q is still continuous.

The relation between ”homeomorphic“, ”identifying“ and ”continuous“ is shown in the fol-lowing diagram.

f : pX,OXq Ñ pX 1,OX1q is a homeomorphism

��

f : pX,OXq Ñ pX 1,OX1q glues pX,OXq to pX 1,OX1qf bij.

KS

��

f : pX,OXq Ñ pX 1,OX1q is continuous

f surj. and (open or closed)

KS

The relations between the first and second row are easy to see, by Remark 2.3.12. Theimplication from the second to the third row is also clear by this Remark. It remainsto deal with the implication from the third to the second row. Before illustrating thiscondition and then moving towards its justification in Theorem 2.3.14 we would like towarn the reader that restricting identifying mappings is more problematic than restrictingcontinuous mappings or homeomorphisms: The restriction of a continuous mappings resp.homeomorphism are again continuous mappings resp. homeomorphisms. In contrast therestriction of an identifying mapping is not necessarily again identifying, cf. Example2.3.17. Now we return to our discussion of the implication from the third row to thesecond row. As stated in Remark 2.3.12, every identifying mapping pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1q iscontinuous. However, the opposite is not true. The identity mapping idt0,1u : t0, 1u Ñ t0, 1ubetween pX,Oq “ pt0, 1u, tX,H, t0uuq and pX 1,O1q “ pX,O1q “ pt0, 1u, tX,Huq is asimple, but maybe not very natural, example. A more natural example for a surjectivecontinuous mapping, which is not identifying is given in Example 2.3.15.

The proof of the following lemma, can also be found in [27, p. 109].

Lemma 2.3.13. A continuous mapping g : pY,OY q Ñ pZ,OZq from a compact spacepY,OY q into a Hausdorff space pZ,OZq is always a closed mapping. In particular g is ahomeomorphism if g is additionally bijective.

23


Proof. A closed subset of the compact space pY,OY q is again compact by part i) of Theorem2.1.1; therefore it is mapped by the continuous mapping g to a compact subset of pZ,OZq,which is a closed subset of this Hausdorff space, by part ii) of Theorem 2.1.1. Hence g is aclosed mapping. If g is in addition bijective then the mapping g is also an open mapping,since the image grOs of every open subset O P OY can then be written in the formgrOs “ grY zpY zOqs “ grY szgrY zOs “ ZzgrY zOs, showing that grOs is the complement ofthe closed set grY zOs and hence an open subset of pZ,OZq. Therefore the mapping g isopen and continuous and hence a homeomorphism.

Each identifying mapping is also continuous. The converse is not true in general. Yet thenext theorem gives some sufficient criteria for ensuring that a continuous function is evenidentifying.

Theorem 2.3.14. A surjective continuous mapping g : pY,OY q Ñ pZ,OZq is identifying,if at least one of the following additional properties is fulfilled:

i) g is a closed or open mapping.

ii) pY,OY q is a compact space and pZ,OZq is a Hausdorff space.

Before proving this theorem, we give an example for a continuous, but not identifyingmapping g, which is defined on a simple subset Y of R2 and maps onto a compact intervalZ. By Theorem 2.3.14 it is clear that Y must not be a compact subset of pR2,O�2q andthat g must not be open and closed. We note that our example was inspired by an example,given by Kelly in [15, ch. Quotient spaces, p. 95], illustrating that there are continuousmappings which are neither open nor closed. The natural topology of R is denoted by O.

Example 2.3.15. The interval r´1, 1s can be generated by putting a single point, sayp0, 1q P R2, into the gap of r´1, 1szt0u “ r´1, 0q Y p0, 1s. This operation is modeled by themapping g : pY,OY q Ñ pZ,OZq, gpyq – y1, where

Y – pr´1, 1szt0u ˆ t0uq Y tp0, 1quand

Z – r´1, 1s

are endowed with the subspace topologies OY “ Y \ O�2 and OZ “ Z \ O, respectively.The projection g is continuous but, however, not identifying: Consider the point 0 P r´1, 1sand its only preimage point p0, 1q P Y . The isolated point p0, 1q P Y has tp0, 1qu — U assmallest open neighborhood. Yet grUs “ t0u is no neighborhood of 0. We remark thatthe same reasoning shows that g is not an open mapping; moreover g is neither a closedmapping since it maps the closed subset r´1, 0q ˆ t0u of pY,OY q to r´1, 0q which is not aclosed subset of pZ,OZq.

24


Proof of Theorem 2.3.14. i) Since g : pY,OY q Ñ pZ,OZq is surjective we have

g is continuous ðñ´

@ qZ Ď Z : qZ P OZ ùñ g´r qZs P OY

¯(2.5)

and

g is identifying ðñ´

@ qZ Ď Z : qZ P OZ ðñ g´r qZs P OY

¯. (2.6)

So our task of proving ”g is continuous ùñ g is identifying“ reduces to verify the statement

@ qZ Ď Z : g´r qZs P OY ùñ qZ P OZ . (2.7)

In the first case that g is open, i.e. fulfills grOY s P OZ for all OY P OY we are done by

writing qZ “ grg´r qZss and setting OY – g´r qZs. In the second case that g is closed, i.e.fulfills grAY s P AZ for all AY P AY – where AY and AZ are the systems of the closedsubsets of pY,OY q and pZ,OZq, respectively – we translate all involved statements of theprevious reasoning from their ”open set viewpoint“ formulation (2.5), (2.6) and (2.7) tothe corresponding ”closed set viewpoint“ formulation, by means of building complements.Then the reasoning goes the same way as before.

ii) By Lemma 2.3.13 the function g maps every closed subset of pY,OY q to a closed subsetof pZ,OZq and therefore fulfills i), which implies that g is identifying.

In the next theorem we consider two functions g : pY,OY q Ñ pZ,OZq and g1 : pY 1,OY 1q ÑpZ,OZq which are identical except that their domains of definition do not need to be totallyidentical; rather pY,OY q shall only to be glued to pY 1,OY 1q by an identifying mappingI : pY,OY q Ñ pY 1,OY 1q. The theorem states that g is continuous respectively identifying,iff so is g1.

pY,OY q

I

��

g▲▲

▲▲▲

&&▲▲▲

▲▲

pZ,OZq

pY 1,OY 1qg1rrrrr

88rrrrr

Theorem 2.3.16. Let g : pY,OY q Ñ pZ,OZq and g1 : pY 1,OY 1q Ñ pZ,OZq be mappingsbetween topological spaces, which are related via g “ g1 ˝ I, with a mapping I that gluespY,OY q to pY 1,OY 1q. Then the following statements hold true:

i) g is continuous ðñ g1 is continuous.

ii) g glues pY,OY q to pZ,OZq ðñ g1 glues pY 1,OY 1q to pZ,OZq.

See also [15, p. 95 – 96] for the first part of the subsequent proof.

25


Proof. Since I is identifying we have, for every subset qZ of Z, the equivalences

g1´r qZs P OY 1 ðñ I´rg1´r qZss P OY ðñ g´r qZs P OY .

Having this in mind we get

g is continuous ðñ´

@ qZ Ď Z : qZ P OZ ùñ g´r qZs P OY

¯

ðñ´

@ qZ Ď Z : qZ P OZ ùñ g1´r qZs P OY 1

¯

ðñ g1 is continuous

and

g is identifying ðñ´

@ qZ Ď Z : qZ P OZ ðñ g´r qZs P OY

¯

ðñ´

@ qZ Ď Z : qZ P OZ ðñ g1´r qZs P OY 1

¯

ðñ g1 is identifying.

We end this subsection with a warning: in general a restriction of an identifying mappingis no longer identifying as the following example shows. Again O is the natural topologyof R and S – tx P R2 : }x}2 “ 1u.

Example 2.3.17. We consider, once more, the both surjective and continuous mappingf : pr0, 2πs, r0, 2πs \ Oq Ñ pS, S X O�2q, given by

x ÞÑ eix “ˆcosx

sin x

˙.

This mapping is identifying by part ii) of Theorem 2.3.14. Restricting this mapping to thesubset X – r0, 2πq we get the continuous bijection f |X : pr0, 2πq, r0, 2πq \ Oq Ñ pS, S XO�2q which is no longer identifying, since an identifying bijection would necessarily be anhomeomorphism, cf. the Diagram on page 23. However the spaces pr0, 2πq, r0, 2πq \ Oqand pS, S X O�2q are clearly not homeomorphic, since only the latter one is compact.

2.3.4 One-point compactification of a topological space

We start with a well known special case before we give the general definition.

Example 2.3.18 (and Definition). It is often convenient to regard Rn as the subsetS

pnqztp0, 0, . . . , 0, 1qu — 9S of the sphere pSpnq,OSpnqq – pSpnq, Spnq \ O�pn`1qq by means ofthe homeomorphism

π : p 9S, 9S \ OSpnqq Ñ pRn,O�nq,π : ps1, s2, . . . , sn; sn`1qT ÞÑ 1

1´sn`1ps1, s2, . . . , snqT,

26


known as stereographic projection, cf. [17, p. 350]. The topological superspace pSpnq,OSpnqqof p 9S, 9S \ OSpnqq differs not much from the latter: The set

Spnq “ 9S Y tp0, 0, . . . , 0, 1qTu

contains just one point more than 9S and the topology OSpnq Ľ 9S\OSpnq differs from 9S\OSpnq

only by additionally containing the open neighborhoods of the ”north pole“ p0, 0, . . . , 0, 1q —

N as expressed by

OSpnq “ p 9S \ OSpnqq 9Y tO P OSpnq : N P Ou“ p 9S \ OSpnqq 9Y tSpnqzA : A P ApSpnqq, A Ď 9Su“ p 9S \ OSpnqq 9Y tSpnqzK : K P KpSpnqq, K Ď 9Su“ p 9S \ OSpnqq 9Y tSpnqzK : K P Kp 9Squ.

Likewise we set Rn8 – R

n Y t8u with an additional point 8 R Rn and define

O�n8 – pO�nq8 – O�n 9Y tRn

8zK : K P KpRnqu.

Then pRn8,O

�n8 q is a compact topological space, called the one-point compactification

of pRn,O�nq; it contains pRn,O�nq as dense subspace. Moreover the homeomorphism π :

p 9S, 9S\OSpnqq Ñ pRn,O�nq can be extended to a homeomorphism pSpnq,OSpnqq Ñ pRn8,O

�n8 q

by setting πpNq – 8. Setting }8} – `8 we then have for any sequence of points xk frompRn

8,O�n8 q the relation

xk Ñ 8 ðñ π´1pxkq Ñ π´1p8qðñ π´1pxkq Ñ N

ðñ }xk} Ñ `8.

For general topological spaces pX,Oq the procedure is done similarly by adding a new point8, resulting in the set X8 – X Y t8u, and by equipping 8 with an appropriate systemof neighborhoods. In the latter we have to be careful if pX,Oq is not a Hausdorff space.Namely, in this case it may happen that there are compact subsets K1, K2 P KpX,Oqwhose intersection K1 XK2 is no longer compact, see Detail 1 in the Appendix; we wouldtherefore fail here, when we were trying to define the open neighborhoods of the new point8 as the sets

X8zK, with K P KpX,Oq, (2.8)

since the union of the ”open neighborhoods“ X8zK1 and X8zK2 is the set pX8zK1q YpX8zK2q “ X8zpK1 X K2q which is no longer a ”neighborhood“ of 8. This problem is

27


solved if we restrict us in (2.8) to those compact subsets K of pK,Oq which are additionallyclosed, see Detail 2 in the Appendix. Choosing

X8zK with K P KApX,Oq (2.9)

as the open neighborhoods of 8 indeed is the right idea. Before we give the definitionof the general one-point compactification in accordance to (2.9) we note that the setsX8zK in (2.8) and (2.9) coincide if pX,Oq is a Hausdorff space since in this case we haveKpX,Oq Ď ApX,Oq by part ii) of Theorem 2.1.1. The following general definition as wellas the subsequent Theorem 2.3.20 are, in essence, taken from [15, p. 150].

Definition 2.3.19. Let pX,Oq be a topological space and 8 R X an additional point.The one-point compactification of pX,Oq is the space pX,Oq8 – pX8,O8q, whereX8 – X Y t8u and O8 – O Y tX8zK : K P KApX,Oqu.

Theorem 2.3.20. The one-point compactification pX8,O8q of a topological space pX,Oqis a compact topological space, which contains pX,Oq as subspace. pX8,O8q is a Hausdorffspace if and only if X is a locally compact Hausdorff space.

2.4 Topologization of totally ordered sets and

topological coercivity notions

In this section’s subsections

‚ 2.4.1 Three topologies for totally ordered sets

‚ 2.4.2 The right order topology on an inf-complete totally ordered set

‚ 2.4.3 Topological coercivity notions and continuity interpretations

‚ 2.4.4 Topological coercivity and boundedness below

we introduce for a given totally ordered set pZ,ďq the right order topology (along with twoother topologies), give its very simple form in case of totally ordered sets, use it to definetopological coercivity notions and show its good influence when investigating boundednessfrom below.

More precisely we introduce in the first subsection three different topolgies for a giventotally ordered set pZ,ďq. For us the most important of them is the right order topologyTď, beeing the suited topology to investigate lower semicontinuity. Also with regard tocoercivity questions this topology is useful.

In the second subsection we will see that pZ, Tďq becomes very simple if the underly-ing totally ordered set is inf-complete. The topology T “ Tď of the topological spacepr´8,`8s, T q is an important example and will be studied in more detail in Section 2.5.

28

2.4 Topologization of totally ordered sets and topological coercivity notions

In the third subsection the notions of topological (strong) coercivity towards a set and someboundedness notions are introduced. In Theorem 2.4.20 we will see that a mapping f :

pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1q is topological coercive (towards H) iff a certain extension pf : pX,Oq8 ÑpX 1,O1q81 is continuous in the newly added point 8. In case of a mapping f : Rn Ñ Rm

this later turns out to be equivalent to the normcoercivity of f , see Theorem 2.5.18. Fora mapping f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ, Tďq another similar relation can be described if the totallyordered set pZ,ďq has a maximum pz and a minimum. In this case f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ, Tďqis topological coercive towards tpzu iff another certain extension pf : pX,Oq8 Ñ pZ, Tďqis continuous in the newly added point 8, see Theorem 2.4.21. In case of a mappingf : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s this will turn out to be equivalent to the coercivity of f , see Theorem2.5.16.

In the fourth and last subsection we recall the usual global boundedness definition for func-tions f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ,ďq and add two less common, more easier to check, local bounded-ness notions and show that the local ones imply the global one if f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ, Těq istopological strongly coercive towards MAXďpZq. Note that here Z is not equipped withthe right order topology but really with the left order topology!

Finally we mention that the right order topology is a special case of the Scott topology fora partially ordered set pZ,Ďq. The latter topology is defined as the collection of all subsetsO of Z which fulfill the following conditions:

i) Along with any z P O also the “upper set” trz P Z : rz Ě zu belongs to O;i.e. – more formally expressed – the condition @z P O @rz P Z : rz Ě z ùñ rz P O

holds true,

ii) Every directed subset S of pZ,Ďq whose supremum exists and belongs to O hasnonempty intersection with O, i.e. fulfills S X O ‰ H,

cf. [21] where Scott defined this topology using the name “induced topology”.

2.4.1 Three topologies for totally ordered sets

Before defining topologies out of ď we remark that we use interval notation just as for R

endowed with the natural order. In addition we introduce analogues for the unboundedreal intervals like p´8, bs.

Definition 2.4.1. Let pX,ďq be a totally ordered set. We use the shortcuts

bq – tx P X : x ă bu,bs – tx P X : x ď bu,pa – tx P X : a ă xu,ra – tx P X : a ď xu.

29


If the totally ordered set is denoted with a decoration like in ď1 we feel free to adopt thenotation accordingly and write e.g. p1a instead of pa.

Given a totally ordered set pX,ďq we consider three different topologies for it, namelytwo “one sided” topologies and one “two sided” topology. We start with the “one sided”topologies, cf. [22, p. 74]. But be aware that the definition there is not totally correct, seeDetail 3 in the Appendix. A correct definition can be found in [32].

Definition 2.4.2. Let pX,ďq be a totally ordered set. The system of sets, which are H, X

or which can be written as unions of sets of the form pa, with a P X, forms a topology. Itwill be called right order topology for pX,ďq and will be denoted by Tď. Analogously theleft order topology Tě for pX,ďq is defined as system of sets which are H, X or whichcan be written as unions of sets of the form bq, with b P X.

Remark 2.4.3. i) The notations for the right order topology and the left order topologyfor a totally ordered set pX,ďq are consistent: Define the inverse order ď on X viax ď y : ðñ x ě y for all x, y P X. Then the left order topology Tě for pX,ďq isindeed just the right order topology Tď for pX,ďq.

ii) The above systems Tď and Tě are really topologies on X: By the first part of thisremark it suffices to prove that Tď is a topology. H and X belong to Tď by definition.Clearly arbitrary unions of sets from Tď belong again to Tď by definition of thissystem. Finally also the intersection of two sets T, S P Tď again belongs to thatsystem: If T or S is empty we have T X S “ H P Tď. Likewise T X S belongs to Tď

if T “ X or S “ X. In the remaining case T “ ŤiPIpti and S “ Ť

jPJpsj with anyindex sets I, J and elements ti, sj P X we finally have

T X S “«ď

iPI

ptiff

X«ď

jPJ

psjff

“ď

iPI

«pti X

ď

jPJ

psjff

“ď

iPI

ď

jPJ

„pti X psj

“

ď

iPI,jPJ

pmax tti, sju.

Hence we have shown T X S P Tď also in this case.

Now the “two-sided” topology is introduced, cf. [32] and [27, p. 22].

Definition 2.4.4. Let pX,ďq be a totally ordered set. The order topology for pX,ďq isthe system Oď consisting of H, X and the “open intervals”

pa, bq or pa or bq

where a, b P X, and all unions of the open intervals.

Example 2.4.5. The order topology for pR,ďq is the natural topology of R which is inducedby | ¨ |.

30


Remark 2.4.6. The order topology for a totally ordered set pX,ďq really is a topology: Inorder to avoid dealing with many cases we first represent the sets from the system Oď in aunified way, which has been mentioned in [32]. To this end let Ð and Ñ be two elementswhich are not yet contained in X. Then set

pX – tÐu Y X Y tÑu

and extend the total order ď on X to a total order on pX (again denoted by ď) by addi-

tionally setting Ðď x and x ďÑ for all x P pX. Then

X “ pÐ,Ñq pa “ pa,ÑqH “ pÑ,Ðq bq “ pÐ, bq

for all a, b P X so that the sets from Oď appear now simply as the unions of sets of the formpa, bq where a, b P pX. This representation makes it clear that arbitrary unions of sets fromOď belong again to Oď. Moreover the intersection of two arbitrary sets O “ Ť

iPIpai, biqand P “ Ť

jPJpcj , djq – with ai, bi, cj, dj P pX and any index sets I, J – can be written inthe form

O X P “ď

iPIjPJ

rpai, biq X pcj, djqs “ď

iPIjPJ

pmaxtai, cju,mintbi, djuq

so that the intersection OXP again belongs to Oď. Finally clearly X,H P Oď so that Oď

really is a topology on X.

Proposition 2.4.7. Let a totally ordered space pZ,ďq be equipped with its right ordertopology Tď. If pZ,ďq has some minimum qz then the only pZ, Tďq-neighborhood of qz is thewhole space Z. In particular a mapping f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ, Tďq is continuous in all points xwhich are mapped to the minimal element. More formally expressed: UrTďspqzq “ tZu and@x P X :

`fpxq “ qz ùñ f is continuous in x

˘.

Proof. Clearly the whole space Z is a neighborhood of qz. It is also the only neighborhoodof qz since this minimum is never contained in a set pa, a P Z, and hence also not in unionsof such sets. Let x P X be a point with fpxq “ qz. For each neighborhood U of x wetrivially have f rUs Ď Z. Since Z is the only existing neighborhood of qz “ fpxq, thisinclusion already shows that f is continuous in x.

Recall in the next theorem that a mapping f : pX,ďq Ñ pX 1,ď1q between ordered sets iscalled an order isomorphism iff f is bijective and fulfills fpx1q ď1 fpx2q ðñ x1 ď x2for all x1, x2 P X.

Theorem 2.4.8. Let pX,ďq and pX 1,ď1q be totally ordered sets with their corresponding

topological spaces pX, Tďq and pX 1, Tď1q, respectively. For a mapping f : X Ñ X 1 thefollowing holds true:

31


i) If f : pX, Tďq Ñ pX 1, Tď1q is continuous in x˚ then fpxq ě1 fpx˚q for all x ě x˚

ii) If f : pX, Tďq Ñ pX 1, Tď1q is continuous then f : pX,ďq Ñ pX 1

,ď1q is monotonicallyincreasing.

iii) f : pX, Tďq Ñ pX 1, Tď1q is a homeomorphism, iff f : pX,ďq Ñ pX 1

,ď1q is an orderisomorphism.

Proof.

i) Let f : pX, Tďq Ñ pX 1, Tď1q be continuous in x˚ P X. For x “ x˚ we trivially have

fpxq ě1 fpx˚q. Assume that there is an x ą x˚ such that fpxq ğ1 fpx˚q. This meansfpxq ă1 fpx˚q, because ď1 is a total order on X 1. Hence fpx˚q P p1fpxq — U 1. Since f iscontinuous in x˚ there is an open neighborhood U P Upx˚q with f rUs Ď U 1 “ p1fpxq. Sincex ą x˚ assures x P U we would consequently get fpxq P f rUs Ď p1fpxq – a contradiction.

ii) This directly follows from i)

iii) Let f : pX, Tďq Ñ pX 1, Tď1q be a homeomorphism. The continuity of f : pX, Tďq Ñ

pX 1, Tď1q and f´1 : pX 1

, Tď1q Ñ pX, Tďq yields the monotonicity of f : pX,ďq Ñ pX 1,ď1q

and f´1 : pX 1,ď1q Ñ pX,ďq, respectively, by part ii). Now let, to the contrary, f :

pX,ďq Ñ pX 1,ď1q be an order isomorphism. Then the bijective mapping f gives a one

to one correspondence between the open sets of pX, Tďq and the open sets of pX 1, Tď1q –

essentially by pa Ø p1fpaq. Thus f is a homeomorphism between these two topologicalspaces.

The following example shows that there are monotone functions between totally orderedsets which are not continuous in the deduced topologies.

Example 2.4.9. Consider the totally ordered sets pX,ďq “ pr0, 1s,ďq and pX 1,ď1q “

pt2, 3u,ď1q, with the natural orders ď on r0, 1s and ď1 on t2, 3u. The mapping f : pX,ďq ÑpX 1

,ď1q, given by

fpxq –

#2 if x P r0, 1q3 if x “ 1.

,

is monotone; yet f : pX, Tďq Ñ pX 1, Tď1q is not continuous: The preimage of t3u “ tx1 P

X 1 : x1 ą1 2u “ p12 P Tď1 is the set t1u Ď r0, 1s. This nonempty set does not belong toTď, because it is neither the full space X, nor can it be written as union of intervals of theform px where x P r0, 1s.

2.4.2 The right order topology on an inf-complete totally ordered

set

In this subsection we give a remark showing that the right order topology gets very simpleif the underlying totally ordered set pX,ďq fulfills a property called inf-completeness whichis defined as follows:

32


Definition 2.4.10. We call a totally ordered set pX,ďq inf-complete, iff each subsetqX Ď X possesses an infimum inf qX P X.

Remark 2.4.11. The the right order topology becomes very simple if it is given to a totallyordered set pX,ďq which is inf-complete: Consider the union of sets pai with ai P X wherei runs through some nonempty index set I. Due to the inf-completeness of pX,ďq we knowthat inftai : i P Iu — a exists in X so that the union

ď

iPI

pai “ pa

is again of the very same form as the original sets. In particular Tď just consists of X,Hand the sets of the form pa where a P X.

Example 2.4.12. Consider the set X – p0, 1q Y p2, 4q endowed with the usual order ď.The totally ordered set pX,ďq is not inf-complete since the interval p2, 3q Ă X has manylower bounds in X but no infimum in X. Setting ai – 2 ` 1

i, i P N we see that the union

ď

iPN

pai “ p2, 4q

is neither H, X nor of the form pa with some a P X.

2.4.3 Topological coercivity notions and continuity interpretations

Recall that KpX,Oq denotes the system of compact subsets of a topological space pX,Oq,whereas the system of its compact and closed subsets is denoted by KApX,Oq. In thefollowing we will need the following subsystems.

Definition 2.4.13. Let pX,Oq be a topological space and S Ď X. Then we set

KASpppX,Oqqq – tK P KApX,Oq : K X S “ Hu,KSpppX,Oqqq – tK P KpX,Oq : K X S “ Hu.

Note that KAHpX,Oq “ KApX,Oq. The main idea behind the first definition is to collectall those closed and compact subsets of pX,Oq in the set system KASpX,Oq, which arenot allowed to hit the set S but which might come “arbitrary close” to S. The idea behindthe second definition is similar.

Lemma 2.4.14. Let pZ,ďq be a totally ordered set which has a minimum qz. Then thefollowing holds true:

i) All closed subsets of pZ, Tďq are compact; in particular KApZ, Tďq “ ApZ, Tďq.

ii) If pZ,ďq contains also a maximum pz then KAtpzupZ, Tďq “ tZzU 1 : U 1 P U 1ppzq X Tďu.

33


Proof. i) No open set O P Tď contains the minimum qz except for O “ Z. Except for theclosed set H “ ZzZ, which is anyway compact, every closed subset A of pZ, Tďq containshence qz. In particular any open covering pTiqiPI of such a set A must have a member T ,which is an open neighborhood of qz. However, the only neighborhood of this minimalelement is the full space Z by definition of Tď. So picking out T “ Z already gives a finitesubcovering for A Ď Z. Hence the nonempty closed subsets of pZ, Tďq are compact. Inparticular KApZ, Tďq “ KpZ, Tďq X ApZ, Tďq “ ApZ, Tďq.ii) Using the previous part we see that the system KAtpzupZ, Tďq consists of exactly thoseclosed subsets of pZ, Tďq which do not contain pz, i.e. of exactly the complements of thoseopen sets which contain pz. In other words the system KAtpzupZ, Tďq consists of exactlythe complements of open neighborhoods of pz. This is what the formula KAtpzupZ, Tďq “tZzU 1 : U 1 P U 1ppzq X Tďu expresses.

The first parts of the following two definitions stem from [31] where just the name “coercive”was used. However we prefer the names “topological coercive” and “strongly topologicalcoercive” here. The second parts of these definitions are new to the best of the author’sknowledge. After stating the definitions we give some remarks on them and point out arelation to the notions of normcoercivity and coercivity.

Definition 2.4.15. A genuine mapping f : pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1q between topological spacespX,Oq and pX 1,O1q is called topological coercive, iff for every closed compact subset K 1

of X 1 there is a closed compact subset K of X such that f rXzKs Ď X 1zK 1; i.e. – moreformally expressed – iff

@K 1 P KApX 1,O1q DK P KApX,Oq : f rXzKs Ď X 1zK 1.

holds true.More generally we say that f is topological coercive towards a set S1 Ď X iff for everyclosed compact subset K 1 of X 1 which does not hit S 1 there is a closed compact subset K ofX such that f rXzKs Ď X 1zK 1; i.e. – more formally expressed – iff

@K 1 P KAS1pX 1,O1q DK P KApX,Oq : f rXzKs Ď X 1zK 1.

holds true.

By replacing “compact and closed” in the codomain in the previous definition by “compact”we get the following definition:

Definition 2.4.16. A genuine mapping f : pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1q between topological spacespX,Oq and pX 1,O1q is called topological strongly coercive, iff for every compact subsetK 1 of X 1 there is a closed compact subset K of X such that f rXzKs Ď X 1zK 1; i.e. – moreformally expressed – iff

@K 1 P KpX 1,O1q DK P KApX,Oq : f rXzKs Ď X 1zK 1

34


holds true.More generally we say that f is topological strongly coercive towards a set S1 Ď X

iff for every compact subset K 1 of X 1 which does not hit S 1 there is a closed compact subsetK of X such that f rXzKs Ď X 1zK 1; i.e. – more formally expressed – iff

@K 1 P KS1pX 1,O1q DK P KApX,Oq : f rXzKs Ď X 1zK 1

holds true.

Remark 2.4.17. A genuine mapping f : pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1q is topological coercive iff it istopological coercive towards H. Likewise the mapping f is topological strongly coercive iffit is topological strongly coercive towards H.

Remark 2.4.18. The previous Definitions 2.4.15 and 2.4.16 coincide if the codomainpX 1,O1q is a topological space whose compact sets are all closed, e.g. if pX 1,O1q is aHausdorff space, cf. Theorem 2.1.1. In later applications however the codomain will be atotally ordered set equipped with the right order topology which contains compact sets thatare not closed, so that the definitions no longer coincide.

Remark 2.4.19. Although the notion of topological coercivity is defined in the context ofany topological spaces pX,Oq and pX 1,O1q it is rather made for noncompact spaces pX,Oqand pX 1,O1q; if one of these spaces is compact the notion of of topological coercivity becomesuninteresting: If pX,Oq is compact then every genuine mapping f : pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1qfrom pX,Oq to any topological space pX 1,O1q is trivially topological coercive since we canalways choose K – X. If, on the other hand, the space pX 1,O1q is compact we can chooseK 1 – X 1 so that a genuine mapping f : pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1q is topological coercive iff pX,Oqis compact.

In Subsection 2.5.4 we will define the notion normcoercive for mappings f : Rn Ñ Rm

and the notion coercive for mappings f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s and see that these notionsare special cases of topological coercivity towards a set: One the one hand a mappingf : Rn Ñ Rm is normcoercive iff it is topological coercive, i.e. topological coercive towardsH, see Theorem 2.5.18. On the other hand a mapping f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s is coercive iffit is topological coercive towards maxr´8,`8s “ t`8u, see Theorem 2.5.16. For provingthese equivalences the subsequent two theorems will be helpful.

The first of these theorems states that the topological coervivity of a mapping f : pX,Oq ÑpX 1,O1q can be viewed as continuity at “infinity”:

Theorem 2.4.20. Let pX,Oq and pX 1,O1q be topological spaces and pX,Oq8 and pX 1,O1q81

their one-point compactifications. For a mapping f : X Ñ X 1 and its extension pf : X8 ÑX 1

81, given by

pfpxq –

#fpxq, if x P X81, if x “ 8

the following are equivalent:

35


i) f : pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1q is topological coercive.

ii) pf : pX,Oq8 Ñ pX 1,O1q81 is continuous at 8.

Proof. Using the definitions of topological coercivity and the definition of the one pointcompactification we get

f : pX,Oq Ñ pX 1,O1q is topological coercive

ðñ @K 1 P KApX 1,O1q DK P KApX,Oq : f rXzKs Ď X 1zK 1

ðñ @K 1 P KApX 1,O1q DK P KApX,Oq : f rXzKs Y t81u Ď pX 1 Y t81uqzK 1

ðñ @K 1 P KApX 1,O1q DK P KApX,Oq : pfrX8zKs Ď X 181zK 1

ðñ @U 1 P U 1p81q DU P Up8q : pf rUs Ď U 1

ðñ pf : pX,Oq8 Ñ pX 1,O1q81 is continuous at the point 8.

Regard now a mapping f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ, Tďq where Tď is the right order topology inducedby some total order ď on Z. If Z has a minimum and a maximum we can similar regardthe topological coercivity of f towards maxX 1 as continuity at “infinity”:

Theorem 2.4.21. Let pX,Oq be a topological space and pZ,ďq a totally ordered set whichhas a minimum qz and a maximum pz. For a mapping f : X Ñ Z and its extensionpf : X8 Ñ Z given by

pfpxq –

#fpxq if x P Xpz if x “ 8 (2.10)

the following are equivalent:

i) f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ, Tďq is topological coercive towards tpzu “ tmaxď Zu.

ii) pf : pX,Oq8 Ñ pZ, Tďq is continuous at the point 8.

Proof. Using part ii) of Lemma 2.4.14 and pfp8q “ pz we obtain

f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ, Tďq is topological coercive towards tpzuðñ @K 1 P KAtpzupZ, Tďq DK P KApX,Oq : f rXzKs Ď ZzK 1

ðñ @U 1 P U 1ppzq X Tď DK P KApX,Oq : f rXzKs Ď ZzpZzU 1qðñ @U 1 P U 1ppzq DK P KApX,Oq : f rXzKs Ď U 1

ðñ @U 1 P U 1ppzq DK P KApX,Oq : pf rX8zKs Ď U 1

ðñ @U 1 P U 1ppzq DU P Up8q : pfrUs Ď U 1

ðñ pf : pX,Oq8 Ñ pZ, Tďq is continuous at the point 8.

36


2.4.4 Topological coercivity and boundedness below

In this subsection we deal with the relations between one global and two local bound-edness notions and give a sufficient criteria when local boundedness implies the globalboundedness, cf. also [4, p. 240f].

We first give the definitions of the mentioned boundedness notions.

Definition 2.4.22. Let f : X Ñ Z be a genuine mapping from a topological space pX,Oqto some totally ordered set pZ,ďq. We call f bounded below, if there is some qz P Z suchthat fpxq ě qz for all x P X. We call f locally bounded below, iff every point x0 P Xhas a neighborhood U P Upx0q where f |U is bounded below; i.e. – more formally expressed– iff

@x0 P X DU P Upxq Dqz P Z @x P U : fpxq ě qz

holds true. Similarly, we call f compactly bounded below, iff f is bounded below onevery compact subset of X; i.e. – more formally expressed – iff

@K P KpX,Oq Dqz P Z @x P K : fpxq ě qz

holds true.

The next proposition shows relations between these boundedness notions. Note thereinthat the relation between "locally bounded below" and "compactly bounded below" issimilar to the relation between the notions "locally uniform convergence" and "compactly(uniform) convergence": Local boundedness below always implies compact boundednessbelow; in locally compact spaces the two notions even coincide. Note further that all threeboundedness notions for a mapping f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ,ďq coincide if f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ, Těqis topological strongly coercive towards MAXďpZq.Proposition 2.4.23. The different boundedness notions for a function f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ,ďqbetween a topological space and a totally ordered space are related as follows:

f bounded below

��f locally bounded below

��f compactly bounded below

pX,Oq loc. comp.

KSf :pX,OqÑpZ,Těq top. str. coerc. tow. MAXďpZq

Zb

Proof. Clearly boundedness below implies locally boundedness below. Next, let f : X Ñ Z

be locally bounded below. For every x P X there is then some – without loss of generalityopen – neighborhood Ux of x and some zx P Z such that

fprxq ě zx

37


for all rx P Ux. Let now K be some – without loss of generality nonempty – compact subsetof X. Clearly the sets Ux, x P K form an open covering of K. By the compactness of Kthere are finitely many x1, x2, . . . xN P K with

Nď

n“1

Uxn Ě K.

Setting qz – mintzx1 , zx2 , . . . , zxN u we hence get fpxq ě qz for all x P K, so that f is indeedcompactly bounded below.

Assume now that pX,Oq is additionally locally compact and let to the contrary f becompactly bounded below. Every x0 P X has some compact neighborhood K — U. Forthis compact set there is some qz P Z such that fpxq ě qz for all x P K “ U . Thus fis locally bounded below. Finally we consider a mapping f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ, Těq which istopological strongly coercive towards MAXďpZq and show that f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ,ďq isalready bounded below if it is compactly bounded below. Assuming the latter we reasondependent on the cardinality of Z. If Z contains at most one element then f anyway isbounded below. Otherwise we choose any z1 P ZzMAXďpZq and consider the set

K 1 – tz P Z : z ď z1u.

The set K 1 is a compact subset of pZ, Těq by Detail 4 in the Appendix. Therefore andsince f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ, Těq is topological strongly coercive towards MAXďpZq there is acompact set K P KpX,Oq with f rXzKs Ď ZzK 1, i.e.

fpxq ą z1 for all x P XzK.

Moreover the compactly lower bounded function f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ,ďq is bounded below onK, i.e. there is a z2 P Z such that

fpxq ě z2 for all x P K.

Summarizing we have fpxq ě mintz1, z2u for all x P X, so that f is indeed boundedbelow.

2.5 The topological space ppprrr´888, `888sss,T qqqIn subsections

‚ 2.5.1 A topology on r ´ 8,`8s suited for lower semicontinuous functions

‚ 2.5.2 Properties of the topological space pr ´ 8,`8s, T q

‚ 2.5.3 Known properties of lower semicontinuous functions revisited

38

2.5 The topological space pr ´ 8,`8s, T q

‚ 2.5.4 Coercivity properties versus continuity properties

‚ 2.5.5 Continuous arithmetic operations in pr´8,`8s, T q

we equip r´8,`8s with the right order topology T “ Tď, study some properties of theresulting topological space pr´8,`8s, T q, allowing us to see known properties of lowersemicontinuous functions in a topological light, show that coercivity can be regarded ascontinuity, and that there is a continuous addition on r´8,`8s if the topology T isinstalled on r´8,`8s.A key role for establishing a – as far as the author knows – new topological method forproving lower semicontinuity plus coercivity of a function is due to Theorem 2.5.16, whichallows us to replace the task of proving the lower semicontinuity and coercivity of a functionh : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s by the task of showing that h admits a certain continuous extension.

2.5.1 A topology on rrr´888, `888sss suited for lower semicontinuous

functions

In this subsection we search for a topology T for the interval r´8,`8s which is suitedwhen dealing with lower semicontinuous functions.

Definition 2.5.1. A function f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s is called lower semicontinuous orlsc, iff it has one of the following equivalent properties:

‚ @x, x1, x2, x3, ¨ ¨ ¨ P Rn : xl Ñ x ùñ fpxq ď lim inf lÑ`8 fpxlq,

‚ f´rr´8, αss is closed for all α P p´8,`8q.

These conditions are really equivalent, cf. [19, Theorem 7.1].

We start with a consideration which will lead us to the definition of our topology forr´8,`8s.Let f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s be a function. Referring to the natural topology of Rn, whenspeaking about “open” and “closed” sets, we have

f is lsc ðñ f´rr´8, αss is closed for all α P p´8,`8q (2.11)

ðñ f´rpα,`8ss is open for all α P p´8,`8q. (2.12)

Agreement. In the rest of this thesis the interval r´8,`8s will – unless otherwise stated– be equipped with the topology created by taking the above sets pα,`8s, α P p´8,`8q assubbasis, i.e. with the topology

T – tH, r´8,`8s, pα,`8s : α P p´8,`8qu,

39


which is the right order topology Tď for the inf–complete, totally ordered space pr´8,`8s,ďq,cf. Remark 2.4.11. Only in a few situations we will equip r´8,`8s with the “just opposite”topology

Tě “ tH, r´8,`8s, r´8, βq : β P p´8,`8qu.

By equivalence (2.12) a function f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s is lower semicontinuous if and onlyif the preimages of all sets pα,`8s, α P p´8,`8q, are open sets. Since the intervalspα,`8s, α P p´8,`8q form a subbasis of T we further have

f´rpα,`8ss is open for all α P p´8,`8qðñ f´rT s is open for all T P T

ðñ f : pRn,O�nq Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is continuous.

In summary we obtain the following theorem, cf. [10, Examples II – 2.3 (3)]

Theorem 2.5.2. For a mapping f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s the following are equivalent:

i) f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s is lower semicontinuous,

ii) f : pRn,O�nq Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is continuous.

By this theorem the notion of lower semicontinuity can be extended to a broader class offunctions, while staying consistent with the definition for functions f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s.

Definition 2.5.3. Let a set X be endowed with some topology OX . A mapping f : X Ñr´8,`8s is called lower semicontinuous iff f : pX,OXq Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is continu-ous.

The topology T on r´8,`8s does not only allow to regard the notion of lower semiconti-nuity as continuity; also the notion of coercivity can be viewed as continuity property, seeTheorem 2.5.16.

2.5.2 Properties of the topological space ppprrr´888, `888sss,T qqqThe topology T is not induced by a metric on r´8,`8s since otherwise every two dis-tinct points would have non-overlapping neighborhoods, but this is obviously not the case;consider for example the points x1 “ 1 and x2 “ 2 and any two neighborhoods N1 and N2

of x1 and x2, respectively – the intersection N1 XN2 Ě r2,`8s is not empty. Only by thisfact that pr´8,`8s, T q is not a Hausdorff space the following phenomena are possible:

i) A sequence pykqkPN in pr´8,`8s, T q can have several limit points at the same time.In particular, ´8 is a limit point of any sequence pykqkPN in pr´8,`8s, T q.

40


ii) The space pr´8,`8s, T q contains compact subsets that are not closed.

Illustrations of these phenomena can be found in Example 2.5.4 and Example 2.5.7,respectively. Phenomena i) is completely explained by Theorem 2.5.5.

Example 2.5.4. Consider the constant sequence pynqnPN “ p1qnPN in the topological spacepr´8,`8s, T q. On the one hand every y P p1,`8s is not a T -limit point of pynq; indeed,the neighborhood U – pz,`8s of y, where z is any point between 1 and y, does not containeven one single sequence member. On the other hand every y P r´8, 1s is a T -limit pointof pynq; indeed, any neighborhood of y contains the set ry,`8s and hence even all sequencemembers.

More generally we have the following theorem:

Theorem 2.5.5 (Limits of sequences in pr´8,`8s, T q). Let pynqnPN be a sequence inr´8,`8s. A point y P r´8,`8s belongs to T -limnÑ`8 yn, iff y ď lim infnÑ`8 yn. Inparticular the point ´8 is T -limit point of every sequence in pr´8,`8s, T q.

Proof. Consider first the case y “ ´8. Then clearly y ď lim infnÑ`8 yn and also y PT -limnÑ`8 yn, because the only T -neighborhood of y “ ´8 is r´8,`8s which containstrivially all yn. Hence the claimed equivalence holds true in this case. In the other casey P p´8,`8s we have y R T -limnÑ8 yn iff there is some neighborhood pa,`8s of y wherea P p´8, yq such that yn R pa,`8s for infinitely many n P N, i.e. iff lim infnÑ`8 yn ă y

holds true. So the claimed equivalence holds true also in that case.

Theorem 2.5.6 (Compact subspaces of pr´8,`8s, T q). For nonempty subsets K Ďr´8,`8s the following are equivalent:

i) pK,K \ T q is a compact subspace of pr´8,`8s, T q.

ii) infK belongs to K.

In particular the whole space pr´8,`8s, T q is compact.

Before proving this theorem we give an example that shows that the space pr´8,`8s, T qhas compact subsets which are not closed. It also illustrates that – in contrast to theinfimum – the supremum of compact subsets of pr´8,`8s, T q needs not to belong to thecompact set.

Example 2.5.7. Consider the set K – r0, 1q. pK,K \ T q is compact by Theorem 2.5.6;yet K is not a closed subset of pr´8,`8s, T q, since its complement r´8, 0q Y r1,`8s isobviously not an open set from T . Furthermore K does clearly not contain its supremum1.

41


This examples and part i) of Lemma 2.4.14 shows Apr´8,`8s, T q Ă Kpr´8,`8s, T q.Such a relation can never be true in Hausdorff spaces pX,Oq, where we rather haveApX, T q Ě KpX, T q, due to part ii) of Theorem 2.1.1 or even ApX, T q Ą KpX, T q ifthe space pX,Oq is not compact.

Proof of Theorem 2.5.6. Let pK,K \ T q be any nonempty compact subspace and let qk Pr´8,`8s denote the infimum of K. In the first case qk “ `8 the nonemptiness of K

yields K “ t`8u and thus qk P K. In the second case qk “ ´8 we must have qk P K, sinceotherwise the sets pz,`8s P T , z P t´1,´2,´3, . . . u would form an open covering of Kwhich can not be reduced to a finite subcover; so K would not be compact. In the finalthird case qk P R we similarly must have qk P K since otherwise the sets tqk ` 1

nu, n P N

would form an open covering of K which has no finite subcover.

Let, to the contrary, K now be a nonempty subset of r´8,`8s with qk – infK P K andlet pTiqiPI be an open covering of K with sets Ti from T . Due to

qk P K Ďď

iPI

Ti

there is an i˚ P I with qk P Ti˚. With this open set

Ti˚ P T ztHu“ tr´8,`8s, pα,`8s : α P p´8,`8su

we already have found a finite subcover, because Ti˚ Ě rqk,`8s Ě K. So pK,K \ T q is acompact subspace of pr´8,`8s, T q.Note finally that r´8,`8s contains its infimum ´8, so that pr´8,`8s, T q is compactby the already proven equivalence.

In the subsequent subsection we will use Theorem 2.5.2 and Theorem 2.5.6 to give a topo-logical proof of the known results that the composition of a continuous function with alower semicontinuous function is again lower semicontinuous and that a lower semicontin-uous function takes its infimum on any nonempty compact set, respectively.

2.5.3 Known properties of lower semicontinuous functions

revisited

In this subsection we revisit known properties of lower semicontinous functions. Wewill see that these properties stem from Theorem 2.5.2 and the properties of the spacepr´8,`8s, T q. The property we start with is the fact that every composition g ˝ f of acontinuous mapping f with some lower semicontinuous mapping g is lower semicontinous,cf. [20, 1.40 Exercise].

42


Theorem 2.5.8. Let pX,OXq and pY,OY q be topological spaces, f : pX,OXq Ñ pY,OY qbe a continuous mapping and g : Y Ñ r´8,`8s be a lower semicontinous mapping. Thenthe concatenation h – g ˝ f : X Ñ r´8,`8s is again lower semicontinous.

Proof. The mappings f : pX,OXq Ñ pY,OY q and g : pY,OY q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q arecontinuous by assumption and by definition, respectively. Hence their concatenation h “g ˝ f : pX,OXq Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is again continuous, i.e. h : X Ñ r´8,`8s is lowersemicontinous.

Phenomenon i) in Subsection 2.5.2 said that a sequence pykqkPN in pr´8,`8s, T q can haveseveral limit points at the same time and that ´8 is always a limit point. The first part ofthis phenomenon is reflected also in the fact that lower semicontinous functions defined onpunctured Rn can be usually continued in many ways to a lower semicontinous function onwhole Rn, see Example 2.5.9. The second part of this phenomenon is reflected in the factthat a function f : pX,Oq Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is automatically continuous in all preimagepoints of t´8u, see Lemma 2.5.10.

Example 2.5.9. Consider the function f : Rzt0u Ñ r´8,`8s, given by fpxq – 1.Setting fp0q – c with any c P r´8, 1s we obtain a lower semicontinous function f : R Ñr´8,`8s.

The following lemma is directly obtained as special case of Proposition 2.4.7.

Lemma 2.5.10. Let pX,Oq be a topological space and f : pX,Oq Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q amapping. For every x P X we have

fpxq “ ´8 ùñ f is continuous in x.

Proof. Let x P X be a point with fpxq “ ´8. For each neighborhood U of x we triviallyhave f rUs Ď r´8,`8s. Since r´8,`8s is the only existing neighborhood of ´8 “ fpxq,this inclusion already shows that f is continuous in x.

The following theorem says that a lower semicontinous function attains a minimum onevery nonempty compact subset, cf. [20, 1.10 Corollary].

Theorem 2.5.11. Let pX,OXq be a topological space and f : X Ñ r´8,`8s be lowersemicontinous. Then f attains its infimum on any nonempty compact subset of pX,OXq.

Proof. The mapping f : pX,OXq Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is continuous by Definition 2.5.3.Hence every nonempty compact subset K of pX,OXq is mapped by f to a compact subsetof pr´8,`8s, T q. This again compact image f rKs contains its infimum by Theorem2.5.6.

43


By Theorem 2.5.11 a lower semicontinuous function f : X Ñ r´8,`8s on a topologicalspace pX,OXq takes its minima on every nonempty compact subset of this space. Howeverf does not need to takes maxima on nonempty compact subsets as the following exampleshows.

Example 2.5.12. The function f : R Ñ r´8,`8s given by

fpxq –

#´|x| for x ‰ 0,

´1 for x “ 0,

is a lower semicontinous function that does not attain its supremum 0 “ supxPr´1,1s fpxqon the compact subset r´1, 1s of pR,Oq.

We conclude this subsection by giving a table with some properties of the topologicalspace pr´8,`8s, T q and corresponding properties of lower semicontinuous functions, i.e.continuous functions pX,Oq Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q.

Space pr´8,`8s, T q Function f : pX,Oq cont.ÝÝÝÑ pr´8,`8s, T q cf.A seq. pykqkPN canhave many limit points:y P T -lim

kÑ`8yk ùñ

r´8, ys Ď T -limkÑ`8 yk

Making a function value fpx0qsmaller preserves lower semicontinuity:

rfpxq –

#fpxq if x ‰ x0

c if x “ x0yields still

continuous mapping rf : pX,Oq Ñpr´8,`8s, T q for c P r´8, fpx0qs

Thm. 2.5.5 &Ex. 2.5.9

´8 P T -limkÑ`8

yk for

all sequences pykqkPN inr´8,`8s.

fpx0q “ ´8 ùñ f cont. in x0 Thm. 2.5.5 &Lem. 2.5.10

K 1 Ď r´8,`8s is com-pact ðñ infK 1 P K 1

f takes a minimum on every compact setK Ď X

Thm. 2.5.6 &Thm. 2.5.11

2.5.4 Coercivity properties versus continuity properties

In this subsection we define the notion of coercivity for functions f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8sand see that f is coercive and lower semicontinuous iff extending f to the one pointcompactification of Rn by setting pfp8q – `8 yields a continuous mapping pf : Rn

8 Ñr´8,`8s, see Theorem 2.5.16. This equivalence is the key for a – as far as the authorknows – new technique for proving coercivity plus lower semicontinuity. See Section 2.6and Section 2.7 for more details.

We also define the notion of normcoercivity for mappings f : Rn Ñ Rm and will see that

this property is again equivalent to a continuity property of some continuation of f to theone point compactification of Rn, see Theorem 2.5.18.

We start with giving the definitions.

44


Definition 2.5.13. A function f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s is called coercive, iff

fpxq Ñ `8 for ‖x‖ Ñ `8

A related coercivity notion is given in [6, Definition 1.12], cf. also [6, Example 1.14]. Forthe next definition cf. [8, p. 134].

Definition 2.5.14. A mapping f : Rn Ñ Rm is called normcoercive, iff

‖fpxq‖ Ñ `8 for ‖x‖ Ñ `8

For a mapping f : Rn Ñ R we can speak both of coercivity and normcoercivity. Clearlycoercivity implies normcoercivity. The contrary holds not true as the following exampleshows:

Example 2.5.15. The function f : R Ñ R given by fpxq – x is clearly normcoercive.Considering the sequence of the numbers xk – ´k for x P N we have |xk| Ñ `8 ask Ñ `8 but fpxkq “ ´k Ñ ´8 ‰ `8 as k Ñ `8 so that f is not coercive.

The following theorems show that coercivity properties of functions correspond to conti-nuity properties of special continuations of them – anticipating a name from Section 2.6– more precisely of special compact continuations of them. The order topology for theinterval r´8,`8s is denoted by Oď, cf. Definition 2.4.4.

Theorem 2.5.16. A mapping f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s and its continuation

pf : Rn8 Ñ r´8,`8s, given by pfpxq –

#fpxq, if x P Rn

`8, if x “ 8 , are connected by the following

relations:

i)

f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s is coercive

ðñ f : pRn,O�nq Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is topological coercive towards t`8uðñ pf : pRn

8,O�n8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is continuous at the point 8 P R

n8

ðñ pf : pRn8,O

�n8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s,Oďq is continuous at the point 8.

ii)

f : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s is lower semicontinous and coercive

ðñ pf : pRn8,O

�n8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is continuous.

45


Before proving this theorem we give an example to illustrate part ii). O denotes again thenatural topology on R.

Example 2.5.17. The function f : R Ñ r´8,`8s, given by

fpxq – x

is lower semicontinous but not coercive. In accordance to part ii) of Theorem 2.5.16 its

continuation pf : pR8,O8q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q, given by

pfpxq –

#fpxq “ x if x P R

`8 if x “ 8,

is not continuous; more precise pf is not continuous in the newly added point 8 sincethere is no compact subset K of R such that a pf rR8zKs is contained in the neighborhoodp3,`8s — U of `8 for the following reason: Any compact subst K of R is bounded and

hence contained in some interval rŃ,Ns with some N P N. Hence the image pf“R8zK

‰Ě

pf“R8zrŃ,Ns

‰“ p´8,Ńq Y pN,`8s Ě p´8,Ńq is not completely contained in

U “ p3,`8s.

Proof of Theorem 2.5.16.i) We have

f is coercive

ðñ fpxq Ñ `8 for ‖x‖ Ñ `8ðñ @α P R DR ą 0 @x P R

n : ‖x‖ ą R ñ fpxq ą α

ðñ @α P R DR ą 0 : f rRnzBRp0qs Ď pα,`8sp˚qðñ @α P R DK P KApRnq : f rRnzKs Ď pα,`8s

ðñ @U P U 1p`8q X T DK P KApRnq : f rRnzKs Ď U 1

p˛qðñ @K 1 P KAt`8upr´8,`8s, T q DK P KApRnq : f rRnzKs Ď r´8,`8szK 1

ðñ f : pRn,O�nq Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is topological coercive towards t`8u.

Explanations for the equivalences in p˚q and p˛q are given in Detail 5 in the Appendix.So we have proved the first of the claimed three equivalences. The second of the claimedequivalences is just a special case of Theorem 2.4.21. Finally the third of the claimedequivalences holds true since the system tT P T : `8 P T u of open T –neighborhoodsof `8 is both a T –neighborhood basis of `8 and an Oď–neighborhood basis for `8; adetailed proof of the third equivalence can be found in Detail 6 in the Appendix.

46


ii) With Theorem 2.5.2 and part i) we get

f is lsc and coercive

ðñ f : pRn,O�nq Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is continuous in every x P Rn

and coercive.RnPO�n

8ðñ pf : pRn8,O

�n8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is continuous in every x P Rn

and f is coercive.

ðñ pf : pRn8,O

�n8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is continuous in every x P Rn

and in x “ 8.

ðñ pf : pRn8,O

�n8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is continuous.

Similarly we have the following theorem.

Theorem 2.5.18. For a mapping f : Rn Ñ Rm and its continuation pf : Rn8 Ñ Rm

8, wherepfp8q – 8, the following are equivalent:

i) f : Rn Ñ Rm is normcoercive.

ii) f : pRn,O�nq Ñ pRm,O�mq is topological coercive.

iii) pf : pRn8,O

�n8 q Ñ pRm

8,O�m8 q is continuous in 8 P R

n8.

Proof. Similar to the proof of part i) in Theorem 2.5.16 we obtain

f is normcoercive

ðñ ‖fpxq‖ Ñ `8 for ‖x‖ Ñ `8ðñ @r P R DR ą 0 @x P R

n : ‖x‖ ą R ñ ‖fpxq‖ ą r

ðñ @r P R DR ą 0 : f rRnzBRp0qs Ď RmzBrp0q

p˚qðñ @r P R DK P KpRnq : f rRnzKs Ď RmzBrp0q

ðñ @K 1 P KpRmq DK P KpRnq : f rRnzKs Ď RmzK 1

ðñ f : pRn,O�nq Ñ pRm,O�mq is topological coercive.

For the equivalence p˚q cf. Detail 5. So the equivalence of the first two statements fromTheorem 2.5.18 is proved. The equivalence of the second and the third statement is just aspecial case of Theorem 2.4.20.

47


2.5.5 Continuous arithmetic operations in ppprrr´888, `888sss,T qqqIn this subsection we consider addition and multiplication on r´8,`8s. In Theorem 2.5.20we show that there is a continuous addition ` : pr´8,`8s2, T �2q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q onpr´8,`8s, T q. This is remarkable, since there is no continuous addition on the topologicalspace pr´8,`8s,Oďq, no matter which value from r´8,`8s we choose for the critical´8`p`8q. Regarding multiplication, however, things are more complicated. For instancewe will see in Theorem 2.5.22 that multiplication with λ P p0,`8q is continuous, whereasmultiplication with λ P p´8, 0q is not continuous – but we should rather be happy aboutthat: The just mentioned properties of the multiplication fit namely to the facts thatmultiplying a lower semicontinuous function with some λ P p0,`8q gives again a lowersemicontinuous function, whereas multiplying with λ P p´8, 0q can result in a non lowersemicontinuous function:

Example 2.5.19. Consider the function f : R Ñ R given by

fpxq –

#3 for x ă 0

2 for x ě 0.

Obviously f is lower semicontinuous (but not upper semicontinuous). Multiplication of fwith ´1 P p´8, 0q results in the non lower semicontinuous function ´f .

The next theorem shows that there is a continuous addition on r´8,`8s.

Theorem 2.5.20. Continuing the addition on R Y t`8u, by setting `8 ` p´8q – ´8and ´8 ` p`8q – ´8, we get a continuous function

` : pr´8,`8s ˆ r´8,`8s, T � T q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q.

Setting `8` p´8q or ´8 ` p`8q not to ´8, but to any other value c P p´8,`8s wouldresult in a non-continuous mapping.

Proof. We set ´8`p`8q and `8`p´8q to some values c, d P r´8,`8s, respectively, andask if the thereby extended addition ` : pr´8,`8sˆr´8,`8s, T �T q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T qcan be continuous at all in the points p´8;`8q P r´8,`8sˆr´8,`8s and p`8;´8q Pr´8,`8sˆr´8,`8s, respectively. We deal first with the point p´8;`8q P r´8,`8sˆr´8,`8s and consider the local mapping behavior of our extended addition near thispoint. To this end note that any neighborhood U of that point contains a subset of the formr´8,`8s ˆ pα,`8s, where α P r´8,`8q, and therefore is mapped to `rUs “ r´8,`8sall the more. So we can achieve continuity in the point p´8;`8q P r´8,`8sˆr´8,`8sonly by choosing a value c whose only neighborhood is r´8,`8s; clearly only c “ ´8meets that demand. Analogously, setting d “ ´8 is the only chance to get an extendedaddition, which is continuous in the point p`8;´8q P r´8,`8s ˆ r´8,`8s.

48


Now we prove that setting ´8 ` p`8q – ´8 and `8 ` p´8q – ´8 really yields acontinuous mapping

` : pr´8,`8s ˆ r´8,`8s, T � T q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q

To this end we show that all preimages

`´rpc,`8ss “ tpa1, a2q P r´8,`8s2 : a1 ` a2 ą cu“ tpa1, a2q P p´8,`8s2 : a1 ` a2 ą cu — Ac

of the subbasis forming sets pc,`8s, c P r´8,`8q are again open sets. For this purposewe show that every pa1, a2q P Ac is an interior point of Ac, i.e. that there are neighborhoodspqa1,`8s of a1 and pqa2,`8s of a2 with

@b1 P pqa1,`8s, b2 P pqa2,`8s : b1 ` b2 ą c.

In the first case a1, a2 P R we can choose qa1 – a1 ´ 12ppa1 ` a2q ´ cq ă a1 and qa2 –

a2 ´ 12ppa1 ` a2q ´ cq ă a2. In the second case a1 “ a2 “ `8 the job is done by qa1 – c

2

and qa2 – c2. In the third case a1 “ `8 and a2 P R we can choose any real qa2 ă a2 and

then set qa1 – c ´ qa2 ă `8. The remaining forth case a1 P R and a2 “ `8 “ a1 can behandled analogously by switching roles.

Next we will consider multiplication. We start with the following lemma which allows totransfer some of our results about addition to multiplication.

Lemma 2.5.21. Extending the usual exponential function x ÞÑ ex via e`8 – `8 ande´8 – 0 gives a homeomorphism pr´8,`8s, T q Ñ pr0,`8s, r0,`8s \ T q. It translatesthe, by means of `8 ` p´8q “ ´8 ` p`8q “ ´8, extended addition into the, by meansof 0 ¨ p`8q “ `8 ¨ 0 “ 0, extended multiplication; namely in virtue of

exppx1 ` x2q “ exppx1q ¨ exppx2q

for all x1, x2 P r´8,`8s.

Proof. Since the extended exponential function is an order isomorphism between the totallyordered sets pr´8,`8s,ďq and pr0,`8s,ď |r0,`8sˆr0,`8sq we know, by Theorem 2.4.8, that

exp : pr´8,`8s, T q Ñ pr0,`8s, r0,`8s \ T q;

is an homeomorphism; note here that the subspace topology r0,`8s \ T is the same asthe right order topology on r0,`8s, generated by ď |r0,`8sˆr0,`8s.

49


The following theorem deals in its first block with multiplication on r0,`8s and withmultiplication on r´8,`8s. Since the results for the latter are not as satisfying as theresults in Theorem 2.5.20 we moreover deal in a second block with multiplication

mλ : pr´8,`8s, T q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q, mλpxq – λx

by a factor λ P r´8,`8s, distinguishing the cases λ P p0,`8q, λ “ 0, λ P p´8, 0q, λ “`8 and λ “ ´8. We will see that the continuity properties ofmλ depend heavily on λ. Forinstance the following holds true for the mapping mλ : pr´8,`8s, T q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q.

‚ For λ P p0,`8q it is a homeomorphism and hence in particular continuous.

‚ For λ P p´8, 0q it is discontinuous in every point of r´8,`8q.

More precisely we have the following statements.

Theorem 2.5.22. Considering multiplication as function of two variables the followingstatements hold true:

i) Continuing the multiplication of non-negative numbers, by setting the problematiccases 0 ¨ p`8q – 0 and p`8q ¨ 0 – 0, we get a continuous function

¨ :`r0,`8s ˆ r0,`8s, pr0,`8s ˆ r0,`8sq \ pT � T q

˘Ñ

`r0,`8s, r0,`8s \ T

˘

Setting 0 ¨ p`8q or p`8q ¨0 not to 0, but to any other value d P p0,`8s, would resultin a non-continuous mapping.

ii) Continuing the multiplication on R, by setting each of the problematic cases 0 ¨p`8q, p`8q ¨ 0 and 0 ¨ p´8q, p´8q ¨ 0 to any four values from r´8,`8s, we geta function which is continuous in a point x P r´8,`8s ˆ r´8,`8s, iff

x P tx P r´8,`8s ˆ r´8,`8s : x1 ą 0 and x2 ą 0uYtx P r´8,`8s ˆ r´8,`8s : x1 ¨ x2 “ ´8u.

For multiplication by a constant factor the following statements hold true:

iii) The multiplication mλ : x ÞÑ λx by a factor λ P p0,`8q is a homeomorphism

mλ : pr´8,`8s, T q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q

and thus in particular continuous.

iv) If we agree 0 ¨ x “ x ¨ 0 “ 0 also for x “ ´8 and x “ `8 then the multiplication by0 is also a continuous mapping

m0 : pr´8,`8s, T q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q.

50


v) The multiplication mλ : x ÞÑ λx with λ P p´8, 0q is a mapping

mλ : pr´8,`8s, T q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q,

which is discontinuous in each point r´8,`8q; the point `8 is the only one wherethis mapping is continuous.

vi) Extend the multiplication with `8 by setting the problematic p`8q ¨ 0 to some valuec P r´8,`8s. This extended multiplication

m`8 : pr´8,`8s, T q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q

x ÞÑ p`8q ¨ x –

$’&’%

`8 for x ą 0

c for x “ 0

´8 for x ă 0

with the factor `8 is then continuous in all x ą 0 and in all x ă 0. In the point 0it is continuous, iff we have set c “ ´8.

vii) Extend the multiplication with ´8 by setting the problematic p´8q ¨ 0 to some valuec P r´8,`8s. The, in this way, extended multiplication

m´8 : pr´8,`8s, T q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q

x ÞÑ p´8q ¨ x –

$’&’%

´8 for x ą 0

c for x “ 0

`8 for x ă 0

with the factor ´8 is then continuous in all x ą 0, discontinuous in all x ă 0. In 0

it is continuous, iff c “ ´8.

Proof. i) With the help of the homeomorphism exp from Lemma 2.5.21 and its higherdimensional relative

pr´8,`8s ˆ r´8,`8s, T � T q Ñ pr0,`8s ˆ r0,`8s, pr0,`8s ˆ r0,`8sq \ pT � T qqpx1, x2q ÞÑ pexppx1q, exppx2qq

we can translate our knowledge from Theorem 2.5.20 about the addition to the current i),since those homeomorphisms yield a bijection β between

C`pr´8,`8s, T q�2, pr´8,`8s, T q

˘

andC`pr0,`8s, T q�2, pr0,`8s, T q

˘,

namely via βpfq – gf , where gfpy1, y2q – exp pf pexp´1py1q, exp´1py2qqq . Choosing for fthe extended addition from Theorem 2.5.20 we see that the continuous mapping βp`q is

51


just our, by means of 0 ¨ `8 – 0 and `8 ¨ 0 – 0, extended multiplication. It remains toshow the uniqueness of that extension; assume that there is another continuous extension¨1 of the multiplication with, say, d “ 0 ¨1 p`8q P p0,`8s. Then β´1p¨1q — `1 would be acontinuous extension of the addition with

´8 `1 p`8q “ exp´1p0 ¨1 p`8qq “ exp´1pdq ‰ ´8.

But such a continuous extension of the addition does not exist by Theorem 2.5.20.

ii) We show that the (extended) multiplication is continuous in point x with x1, x2 ą 0.To this end let pβ,`8s, β P r´8, x1 ¨ x2q be some neighborhood of x1 ¨ x2 ą 0. Chooseany qx1, qx2 ą 0 with qx1 ă x1 and qx2 ă x2, β ă qx1 ¨ qx2. Then pqx1,`8s ˆ pqx2,`8s is aneighborhood of x which is mapped by the (extended) multiplication into pβ,`8s. Thisshows the continuity in x.

It remains to show that the (extended) multiplication is continuous in a point

x P pr´8,`8s ˆ r´8,`8sqztpx1, x2q : x1 ą 0 and x2 ą 0u,

iff x1 ¨x2 “ ´8. Assume that x P pr´8,`8s ˆ r´8,`8sqztpx1, x2q : x1 ą 0 and x2 ą 0u.Due to the commutativity of the multiplication we may assume x1 ď x2, without loss ofgenerality, so that we have x1 ď 0. Since any neighborhood U of x contains a subset of theform pqx1,`8s ˆ pqx2,`8s with qx1 ă 0 and qx2 ď x2 we see that ¨rUs “ r´8,`8s. Sincethe multiplication ¨ has to be continuous in x the latter equation means that r´8,`8smust be the only neighborhood of x1 ¨ x2; This is only the case if x1 ¨ x2 “ ´8. FinallyLemma 2.5.10 assures that the multiplication is continuous in points x with x1 ¨ x2 “ ´8.

iii) The multiplication by a constant factor λ P p0,`8q is an order automorphism ofpr´8,`8s,ďq. Because of part iii) of Theorem 2.4.8 it is therefore a homeomorphismpr´8,`8s, T q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q.iv) A constant mapping between topological spaces is continuous.

v) The continuity in `8 is assured by Lemma 2.5.10. Let now x P r´8,`8q and chooseany x2 ą x. Since λx2 ă λx1 we get the discontinuity of mλ in x by part i) of Theorem2.4.8.

vi) The continuity ofm`8 in x ă 0 is ensured by Lemma 2.5.10. m`8 is also continuous in apoint x ą 0: Let pβ,`8s be any neighborhood of x. Then U – p0,`8s is a neighborhoodof x which is mapped by m`8 into pβ,`8s. Consider the remaining point x “ 0. If wehad set c “ ´8 we have continuity in 0 again by Lemma 2.5.10. If we had set c ą ´8we can choose any neighborhood pβ,`8s of c. Since every neighborhood U of 0 containsan element u ă 0 we have ´8 P m`8rUs, so that we get m`8rUs Ę pβ,`8s for allneighborhoods U of 0; i.e. m`8 is not continuous in 0.

vii) The continuity of m´8 in points x ą 0 is again ensured by Lemma 2.5.10. Yet inevery point x ă 0 this mapping is not continuous by part i) of Theorem 2.4.8, since for

52

2.6 Compact continuations

any x2 ą 0 ą x we have m´8px2q ă m´8pxq. Consider now the remaining point x “ 0. Ifwe had set c “ ´8 we have continuity in 0 once more by Lemma 2.5.10. If c ą ´8 wecan just argue as before in the case x ă 0 to see that m´8 is not continuous in 0.


In this subsection we will introduce and deal with the notion of compact continuation offunctions f : pV,Oq Ñ pV 1,O1q between topological spaces pV,Oq and pV 1,O1q. This notionis, as far as the author knows, new.

Due to Theorem 2.5.16 the lower semicontinuity and coercivity of a mapping h : Rn Ñr´8,`8s can be proven by checking that a certain extension ph : Rn

8 Ñ r´8,`8s of h

is continuous, i.e., in other words, if the mapping ph is a compact continuation of h. Ifh “ g ˝ f , as in Section 2.7, then the question arises if h has that compact continuationprovided that both f and g have according compact continuations. An answer to thisquestion is given in Theorem 2.6.2.

We remark here that this technique goes beyond the technique of proving coercivity of amapping h : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s by writing it as composition h “ g ˝ f of a normcoercivemapping f : Rn Ñ Rm and a coercive mapping g : Rm Ñ r´8,`8s, since the lattertechnique works only for decompositions of h where the intermediate space is Rm, whereasthe first technique can – at least in principle – work also for decompositions into functionsf : Rn Ñ Y and g : Y Ñ r´8,`8s where the intermediate space can any topologicalspace Y , like e.g. the product space pr´8,`8s ˆ r´8,`8s, T �T q in the decompositiong “ g2 ˝ g1 in Lemma 2.7.1.

However our topological technique has two disadvantages: It can not be used to provecoercivity of a non lower semicontinuous function and more important: Even if we havea straightforward choice of continuing each of the concatenated function in h “ g ˝ f tofunctions pf : X Ñ Y and ug : uY Ñ uZ it might still be the case that working with ourtechnique could be somewhat cumbersome in cases where Y ‰ uY .

We now define the notion of compact continuation. As far as the author knows this notionis new.

Definition 2.6.1. A continuous mapping f : pV,Oq Ñ pV 1,O1q between topological spacespV,Oq, pV 1,O1q is called compactly continuable if there is a continuation

pf : ppV , pOq Ñ ppV 1, pO1q

which fulfills:

i) ppV , pOq is a compact topological space which contains pV,Oq as subspace,

ii) ppV 1,xO1q is a topological space that contains pV 1,O1q as subspace,

53


iii) pf is continuous and fulfills pfpvq “ fpvq for all v P V.

Each such continuation pf will be called compact continuation of f . If pf fulfills inaddition pf rpV zV s Ď pV 1zV 1 we call pf a home leaving compact continuation of f .

Theorem 2.6.2. Assume that the two continuous mappings f : pX,OXq Ñ pY,OY q,g : pY,OY q Ñ pZ,OZq have compact continuations

pf : p pX,O pXq Ñ ppY ,OpY q,ug : puY ,OuY q Ñ p uZ,O uZq.

Then g ˝ f — h has a compact continuation

ph : p pX,O pXq Ñ p uZ,O uZq

if one of the following conditions is fulfilled:

i) idY : pY,OY q Ñ pY,OY q has a compact continuationxidY : ppY ,OpY q Ñ puY ,OuY q.

ii) idY : pY,OY q Ñ pY,OY q has a compact continuationŇidY : puY ,OuY q Ñ ppY ,OpY q which, firstly, glues puY ,OuY q to ppY ,OpY q and, secondly,fulfills ŇidY py1q “ ŇidY py2q ùñ ugpy1q “ ugpy2q, for all y1, y2 P uY .

iii) idY : pY,OY q Ñ pY,OY q has a surjective compact continuationŇidY : puY ,OuY q Ñ ppY ,OpY q where, firstly, ppY ,OpY q is a Hausdorff space and, secondly,the condition ŇidY py1q “ ŇidY py2q ùñ ugpy1q “ ugpy2q holds true for all y1, y2 P uY .

If, in addition to i) or ii) / iii), respectively, both pf and ( xidY or ŇidY , respectively) are

home leaving compact continuations then ph can be chosen such that it fulfills

phr pXzXs Ď ugruY zY s. (2.13)

Before proving the theorem we show by an example that g ˝ f , does not need to have acompact continuation p pX,O pXq Ñ p uZ,O uZq, if none of the three conditions from the abovetheorem is fulfilled. O denotes again the natural topology of R.

Example 2.6.3. Consider three copies

pX,OXq “ pY,OY q “ pZ,OZq “ pp0, 2πq, p0, 2πq \ Oq

of the real open interval p0, 2πq along with the identity mappings f “ idp0,2πq : pX,OXq ÑpY,OY q and g “ idp0,2πq : pY,OY q Ñ pZ,OZq between them. We will extend the equal

mappings f and g in different ways to compact continuations pf : p pX,O pXq Ñ ppY ,OpY q and

54


ug : puY ,OuY q Ñ p uZ,O uZq such that h – g ˝ f can not be extended to a compact continuationph : p pX,O pXq Ñ p uZ,O uZq. Let

pf – idp0,2πqYt8u :`p0, 2πq, p0, 2πq \ O

˘8

Ñ`p0, 2πq, p0, 2πq \ O

˘8,

ug – idr0,2πs :`r0, 2πs, r0, 2πs \ O

˘Ñ

`r0, 2πs, r0, 2πs \ O

˘

and set

p pX,O pXq – ppY ,OpY q –`p0, 2πq, p0, 2πq \ O

˘8,

puY ,OuY q – p uZ,O uZq – pr0, 2πs, r0, 2πs \ Oq.

The functions pf and ug are compact continuations of f and g, respectively, but it is notpossible to extend h – g ˝ f “ idp0,2πq to a compact continuation ph : p pX,O pXq Ñ p uZ,O uZq;indeed, if such a continuous mapping ph existed, it would have to map its compact domainof definition to a compact subspace of p uZ,O uZq “ pr0, 2πs, r0, 2πs \ Oq; however

phr pXs “ phrp0, 2πq Y t8us “ p0, 2πq Y tphp8qu

would never be a compact subset of pr0, 2πs, r0, 2πs \ Oq – regardless whether php8q “ 0,php8q “ 2π or php8q P p0, 2πq.So we know by the last theorem that none of the conditions i), ii) and iii) can be fulfilled.We nevertheless verify this directly, to complete our illustration of the preceding theorem.

i) is not fulfilled as we just have shown by proving the nonexistence of a compact contin-

uation ph : p pX,O pXq Ñ p uZ,O uZq, i.e. of a compact continuation pidp0,2πq “ ph : ppY ,OpY q ÑpuY ,OuY q.Furthermore ii) and iii) are not fulfilled, since any continuation of idp0,2πq : p0, 2πq Ñ p0, 2πqto a mapping Ŕidp0,2πq : p0, 2πq Y t0, 2πu Ñ p0, 2πq Y t8u is not injective any longer, so thatthere is no chance for the injective mapping ug to fulfill ugpy1q “ ugpy2q in the occurring casethat Ŕidp0,2πqpy1q “ Ŕidp0,2πqpy2q for distinct points y1, y2 P uY .

Proof of Theorem 2.6.2. If i) holds, it suffices to take ph – ug ˝ xidY ˝ pf .

Assume now that condition ii) holds. The mapping g1 : ppY ,OpY q Ñ p uZ,O uZq, given by

g1ppyq – “ugp ŇidY ´rtpyusq“ – ugpuyq, where uy is any element of uY with ŇidY puyq “ py

is well defined since ŇidY py1q “ ŇidY py2q ensures ugpy1q “ ugpy2q, for all y1, y2 P uY . Thedefinition of g1 was done in such a way that ug “ g1 ˝ ŇidY .

ppY ,OpY qg1❑❑

❑❑

%%❑❑❑

❑

puY ,OuY q

ŊidY

OO

ug // p uZ,O uZq

55


This implies, firstly, the continuity of g1, in virtue of Theorem 2.3.16, and, secondly, g1pyq “ugpyq at least for all y P Y . Thus we have found a compact continuation g1 : ppY ,OpY q Ñp uZ,O uZq of g : pY,OY q Ñ pZ,OZq. The concatenation ph – g1 ˝ pf is the needed extension.

Finally note that the assumptions in iii) imply the assumptions in ii), in virtue of Theorem2.3.14.

Next we deal with a special case of Theorem 2.6.2, where the “intermediate” spaces pY,OY q,puY ,OuY q, ppY ,OpY q and the continuation ug have special forms, which will occur, when ap-plying the theory to our example in Section 2.7. We start with the following preparatorylemma.

Lemma 2.6.4. For locally compact Hausdorff spaces pY 1,O1q and pY 2,O2q the followingis true:

i) Both rpY 1,O1q�pY 2,O2qs8 and pY 1,O1q81 �pY 2,O2q82 are compact Hausdorff spaceswhich contain pY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2q as subspace.

ii) An extension of id : pY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2q Ñ pY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2q to a surjective, home-leaving compact continuation id : pY 1,O1q81 � pY 2,O2q82 Ñ rpY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2qs8

is given by

idpy1, y2q –

#py1, y2q , if y1 P Y 1 and y2 P Y 2

8 , if y1 “ 81 or y2 “ 82.

Proof. i) Theorem 2.3.20 ensures that both pY 1,O1q81 and pY 2,O2q82 are compact Haus-dorff spaces, which contain pY 1,O1q and pY 2,O2q, respectively, as subspace. Thereforetheir product space pY 1,O1q81 � pY 2,O2q82 is compact – in virtue of Tichonov’s Theorem2.3.6 – and contains pY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2q “ pY 1, Y 1 \ O1

81q � pY 2, Y 2 \ O282 q as subspace,

since Remark 2.3.8 allows the reformulation

`Y 1, Y 1 \ O1

81˘

�`Y 2, Y 2 \ O2

82˘

“`Y 1 ˆ Y 2, pY 1 ˆ Y 2q \ pO1

81 � O282q

˘.

By Detail 7 the product space pY 1,O1q�pY 2,O2q of two locally compact Hausdorff spaces isagain a locally compact Hausdorff space, so that its one-point compactification rpY 1,O1q �

pY 2,O2qs8 is a compact Hausdorff superspace of pY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2q, by Theorem 2.3.20.This show the first part of the lemma.

ii) As core part for proving that id is a surjective, homeleaving compact continuation of idwe have to show that id is continuous; it easy to see, by id’s definition, that it fulfills theremaining properties, we had to show. In order to prove the continuity of id we will use thatthe projections π1 : pY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2q Ñ pY 1,O1q and π2 : pY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2q Ñ pY 2,O2qto the first and second component, respectively, are continuous and therefore map compactsubsets of pY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2q to compact subsets of pY 1,O1q and pY 2,O2q, respectively.In every point py1, y2q of the open subset Y 1 ˆ Y 2 P O1

81 � O282 the mapping id is clearly

56

2.7 Application of the theory to an example

continuous. It remains to show that id is continuous in all points of the form p81, y2q orpy1,82q where y1 P Y 1

81 and y2 P Y 282. In order to show the continuity in all these preimage

points of 8 we consider any neighborhood

V “ pY 1 ˆ Y 2q8zK

of 8, with arbitrary K P KApY 1 ˆ Y 2q Thm.2.1.1ùùùùùùù KpY 1 ˆ Y 2q and convince ourselves thatthe set U – pY 1

81 ˆY 282qzpπ1rKsˆπ2rKsq “ pY 1

81zπ1rKsqˆY 282 Y Y 1

81 ˆpY 282zπ2rKsq, firstly,

fulfills idrUs “ pY 1 ˆ Y 2q8zpπ1rKs ˆ π2rKsq Ď V and, secondly, is an open neighborhoodof all our preimage points of 8. This shows the second part of the lemma.

Using this Lemma we are now going to prove the announced special case of Theorem 2.6.2:

Theorem 2.6.5. Let pY 1,O1q and pY 2,O2q be locally compact Hausdorff spaces and let twocontinuous mappings f : pX,OXq Ñ pY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2q, g : pY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2q Ñ pZ,OZqhave compact continuations

pf : p pX,O pXq Ñ rpY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2qs8 ,

ug : pY 1,O1q81 � pY 2,O2q82 Ñ p uZ,O uZq.

Then g ˝ f — h has a compact continuation

ph : p pX,O pXq Ñ p uZ,O uZq,

if ug fulfills

ugp81, y2q “ ugpy1,82q (2.14)

for all y1 P Y 181 and y2 P Y 2

82. If, in addition, pf r pXzXs Ď t8u then ph can be chosen suchthat it fulfills

phr pXzXs Ď ugrt81u ˆ Y 2s Y ugrY 1 ˆ t82us Y ugrtp81,82qus. (2.15)

Proof. Setting pY,OY q – pY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2q, ppY ,OpY q – rpY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2qs8 andpuY ,OuY q – pY 1,O1q81 � pY 2,O2q82 we get the theorem as special case of Theorem 2.6.2,since all assumptions of its condition iii) and its additional condition hold true, in virtueof Lemma 2.6.4 and the condition (2.14).


We agree ´8 ` p`8q “ `8 ` p´8q “ ´8 in the following example. Although theassumptions in this example prevent the occurrence of the value ´8 we nevertheless needthe stated agreement in order to obtain a continuous addition on r´8,`8s, cf. Theorem2.5.20.

57


Lemma 2.7.1. Assume that the following mappings are given:

i) Two matrices / linear mappings H : Rn Ñ Rd, K : Rn Ñ R

e with

N pHq X N pKq “ t0u.

ii) Two proper, lower semicontinuous and coercive mappings φ : Rd Ñ r´8,`8s andψ : Re Ñ r´8,`8s.

Then the mapping h : Rn Ñ r´8,`8s, given by

x ÞÑ φpHxq ` ψpKxq (2.16)

is lower semicontinuous and coercive. In particular, the mapping h attains its infimuminf h P r´8,`8s at some point in Rn.

Proof. Due to part ii) in Theorem 2.5.16) our task of proving that h is coercive and lower

semicontinuous can be done by showing that setting php8q – `8 gives a continuous

continuation ph : pRn8,O

�n8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q of h. We will do this in three steps: Firstly

we write h as composition h “ g˝f of easier functions g and f and extend them to compactcontinuations ug and pf . Secondly, a compact continuation uh of h is obtained from ug and pfby applying Theorem 2.6.5. Thirdly we convince us that ph “ uh.The mapping h can be written as composition h “ g2 ˝ g1loomoon

—g

˝f of mappings

f : Rn Ñ Rd ˆ R

e,

g1 : Rd ˆ R

e Ñ r´8,`8s ˆ r´8,`8s,g2 : r´8,`8s ˆ r´8,`8s Ñ r´8,`8s

which are given by

f : x ÞÑˆHx

Kx

˙,

g1 :

ˆy1y2

˙ÞÑ

ˆφpy1qψpy2q

˙,

g2 :

ˆa1a2

˙ÞÑ a1 ` a2.

After equipping the vector spaces Rn — X and Rd ˆ Re — Y with their natural topology,the interval r´8,`8s — Z with the Topology T , and r´8,`8s ˆ r´8,`8s with thecorresponding product topology T �T we have continuous mappings f, g1, g2 and g “ g2˝g1.Due to N pKq X N pLq “ t0u the mapping f is normcoercive and hence the mapping

pf : pRn8,O

�n8 q Ñ

`pRd ˆ R

eq8, pO�d�O�eq8

˘

pfpxq –

#fpxq if x P Rn

8 if x “ 8

58


is a compact continuation by Theorem 2.5.18; furthermore pf fulfills clearly pfrRn8zRns Ď

t8u by definition. Similar, by part ii) in Theorem 2.5.16, we obtain compact continuationsuφ : pRd

8,O�d8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q and uψ : pRe

8,O�e8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q of φ and ψ by

setting uφp8q – `8 and uψp8q – `8, respectively. These two mappings form a compactcontinuation ug1 : pRd

8 ˆ Re8,O

�d8 �O�e

8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s2, T �2q of g1. Then

ug : pRd8 ˆ R

e8,O

�d8 �O�e

8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T qug – g2 ˝ ug1 “ uφ ` uψ

is a compact continuation of g. In order to apply Theorem 2.6.5 we note that pY 1,O1q –

pRd,O�dq and pY 2,O2q – pRe,O�eq are surely locally compact Hausdorff spaces, and that

the mappings pf : pRn8,O

�n8 q Ñ

“pY 1,O1q � pY 2,O2q

‰8

, ug : pY 1,O1q8 � pY 2,O2q8 Ñpr´8,`8s, T q have the needed form, where ug fulfills ugp8, y2q “ uφp8q ` uψpy2q “ `8 “uφpy1q ` uψp8q “ ugpy1,8q for all y1 P Y 1

8 and y2 P Y 28, because φ and ψ are proper. Applying

the theorem we obtain a compact continuation

uh : pRd ˆ Req8 Ñ r´8,`8s

of h with

uhrt8us “ uhrRn8zRns Ď ugrt8u ˆ Y 2s Y ugrY 1 ˆ t8us Y ugrtp8,8qus “ t`8u,

i.e. uhp8q “ `8 “ php8q. So ph “ uh is indeed a continuous mapping`pRdˆReq8,O

�pd`eq8

˘Ñ`

r´8,`8s, T˘.

59

CHAPTER 3

Coercivity of a sum of functions

Outline

3.1 Extension of coercivity notions to broader classes of functions . . . . . . . . . 61

3.2 Normcoercive linear mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3.3 Semidirect sums and coercivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

In this chapter we develop a tool (Theorem 3.3.6) which gives information on which sub-spaces a sum F ` G of certain functions is coercive. The coercivity assertion of Lemma2.7.1 is contained as special case in the coercivity assertion of Theorem 3.3.6 if we setF “ φpHxq “ F1 Z 0X2

and G “ ψpKxq “ G1 Z 0Y2 with F1 – F |X1and G1 – G|Y1 ,

where X1 – RpH˚q, X2 – N pHq and Y1 – RpK˚q, Y2 – N pKq, see Detail 8 in theAppendix.

In contrast to the previous chapter we restrict us in this chapter to coercivity notions with-out regarding e.g. lower semicontinuity at the same time. Moreover the coercivity notionsin this chapter are rather based on norms instead of compact (or compact and closed)sets. In case of vector spaces of finite dimension there is however a strong relation betweentopological coercivity notions from the previous chapter and the coercivity notions thatwill be given in this chapter, see Lemma 3.1.6 and cf. Theorem 2.5.16. For linear mappingsbetween vector spaces of finite dimension normcoercivity is equivalent to injectivity, seeTheorem 3.2.1.

3.1 Extension of coercivity notions to broader classes of

functions

So far we introduced the notions of coercivity and normcoercivity only for mappingsf : Rn Ñ Rm, cf. the definitions on page 45. We now extend the notion of coerciv-ity and normcoercivity to broader classes of functions, show that they behave well under

61

3. Coercivity of a sum of functions

concatenation and that the “Cartesian product” of normcoercive mappings is again norm-coercive, see Theorem 3.1.3 and Lemma 3.1.4, respectively. Then another extension ofthe notion of coercivity is performed by replacing the codomain r´8,`8s by a generaltotally ordered set pZ,ďq. In Lemma 3.1.6 we will see that this coercivity notion is re-lated to topological coercivity notions involving the spaces pZ, Těq and pZ, Tďq. Finallya variant of Proposition 2.4.23 is given in Theorem 3.1.7, saying that a coercive mappingF : pX, } ¨ }Xq Ñ pZ,ďq from normed space of finite dimension into a totally ordered set isalready bounded below if it is locally bounded below.

Definition 3.1.1. Let pX, }¨}Xq be a normed space with nonempty subset X Ď X. We calla mapping f : X Ñ r´8,`8s coercive, if and only if

lim}x}XÑ`8

xPX

f pxq “ `8.

Definition 3.1.2. Let pX, }¨}Xq and pY, }¨}Y q be normed spaces with nonempty subsetsX Ď X, Y Ď Y . We call a mapping f : X Ñ Y normcoercive, if and only if

lim}x}XÑ`8

xPX

}f pxq}Y “ `8.

(I.e. x ÞÑ }f pxq}Y is coercive.)

Note in theses definitions that functions f are vacuously coercive respectively normcoercive,if the domain of definition qX is bounded: The – more explicitly formulated – definingconditions for coercivity and normcoercivity

For all sequences pqxpkqqkPN in qX with }qxpkq} Ñ `8 we have fpqxpkqq Ñ `8,For all sequences pqxpkqqkPN in qX with }qxpkq} Ñ `8 we have }fpqxpkqq} Ñ `8

are namely both trivially fulfilled in that case since a bounded set qX contains no sequencespqxpkqqkPN with }qxpkq} Ñ `8 as k Ñ `8. The following tool is obtained directly from thedefinitions.

Theorem 3.1.3. The following concatenation statements hold:

i) The concatenation of normcoercive mappings is again normcoercive.

ii) The concatenation of a normcoercive mapping E : X Ñ Y with a coercive mappingF : Y Ñ r´8,`8s is coercive.

In the following lemma we equip the product spaces of X ˆ Y with the norm } ¨ } –

} ¨ }XˆY – } ¨ }X ` } ¨ }Y (or any equivalent norm).

62

3.1 Extension of coercivity notions to broader classes of functions

Lemma 3.1.4. Let pX, } ¨ }Xq, pY, } ¨ }Y q and pZ, } ¨ }Zq, pW, } ¨ }W q be normed spaces and

let qF : qX Ñ Z, qG : qY Ñ W be normcoercive mappings, defined on subsets qX and qY of Xand Y , respectively. Then the function qA : qX ˆ qY Ñ Z ˆ W , given by

qApqx, qyq –

˜qF pqxqqGpqyq

¸

is also normcoercive.

Proof. In order to prove that qA : qX ˆ qY Ñ Z ˆ W is normcoercive consider an arbitrarysequence pqxn, qynqnPN in qX ˆ qY with

}pqxn, qynq}XˆY Ñ `8 (3.1)

as n Ñ `8. We have to show that for any C P R there is an N P N such that forall natural n ě N the inequality } qApqxn, qynq} ě C holds true. Assume that the latterstatement is not true; then there is a C ą 0 and a subsequence pqxnk

, qynkqkPN such that

C ą } qApqxnk, qynk

q}ZˆW “ } qF pqxnkq}Z ` } qGpqynk

q}W for all k P N. In particular we had

} qF pqxnkq}Z ă C and } qGpqynk

q}W ă C (3.2)

for all k P N. Consequently both p}qxnk}qkPN and p}qynk

}qkPN would be bounded above bysome B ą 0, see Detail 9 in the Appendix. We thus would obtain }pqxnk

, qynkq}XˆY “

}qxnk}X ` }qynk

}Y ď 2B for all k P N and hence a contradiction to (3.1).

Definition 3.1.5. Let pX, } ¨ }q be a normed space and let pZ,ďq be a totally ordered set.A mapping f : pX, } ¨ }q Ñ pZ,ďq is called coercive iff for any z which is not a maximumof pZ,ďq there is an R ą 0 such that fpxq ą z for all x P X with }x} ą R, i.e – moreformally expressed – iff

@z P ZzMAXďpZq DR ą 0 @x P X : }x} ą R ùñ fpxq ą z

holds true.

Note in the following lemma that we really mean “Tě” in the second condition and that itis not a typo.

Lemma 3.1.6. Let pX, } ¨ }q be a real normed space of finite dimension and let pZ,ďq be atotally ordered set. Equip X with the topology O which is induced by } ¨ }. For a mappingf : X Ñ Z the following are equivalent:

i) f : pX, } ¨ }q Ñ pZ,ďq is coercive.

ii) f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ, Těq is topological strongly coercive towards MAXďpZq.

63


If pZ,ďq contains a minimum and a maximum the above conditions are also equivalent to

iii) f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ, Tďq is topological coercive towards MAXďpZq.

Proof. If Z contains less than two elements all three statements are clearly all true andhence equivalent. In the following we may hence assume that Z contains at least twoelements.“i) ùñ ii)”: Let f : pX, } ¨ }q Ñ pZ,ďq be coercive and let K 1 P KMAXďpZqpZ, Těq.There is some b P ZzMAXďpZq with K 1 Ď bs, see Detail 10 in the Appendix. Sincef : pX, } ¨ }q Ñ pZ,ďq is coercive there is for that b P ZzMAXďpZq an R ą 0 such thatfpxq ą b for all x P X with }x} ą R. In other words

f rXzBRr} ¨ }ss Ď Zzbs.

Setting K – BRr} ¨ }s we hence have found a compact and closed subset of pX, } ¨ }q withf rXzKs Ď X 1zbs Ď X 1zK 1.“ii) ùñ i)”: Let f : pX,Oq Ñ pZ,ďq be topological strongly coercive towards MAXďpZq.Let z P ZzMAXďpZq. The set zs — K 1 is a compact subset of pZ, Těq, cf. Detail 4in the Appendix. Moreover K 1 X MAXďpZq “ H so that K 1 P KMAXďpZqpZ, Těq. Sincef : pX,Oq Ñ pZ, Těq is topological strongly coercive towards MAXďpZq there is hence aK P KpK,Oq such that

f rXzKs Ď ZzK 1.

Let R ą 0 be so large that BRr} ¨ }s Ě K. Then

f rXzBRr} ¨ }ss Ď f rXzKs Ď ZzK 1 “ Zzzs “ pz.

In other words we know that for x P X the inequality }x} ą R implies fpxq ą z. Sof : pX,Oq Ñ pZ,ďq is coercive. Finally assume now additionally that pZ,ďq containsboth a minimum qz and a maximum pz. Set S 1 – MAXďpZq “ tpzu. We have to prove thatthe two statements

@K 1 P KS1pZ, Těq DK P KApX,Oq : f rXzKs Ď ZzK 1, (3.3)

@L1 P KAS1pZ, Tďq DK P KApX,Oq : f rXzKs Ď ZzL1 (3.4)

are now equivalent. In order to prove that (3.4) implies (3.3) it is clearly sufficient toshow that for any K 1 P KS1pZ, Těq there is some L1 P KAS1pZ, Tďq with ZzL1 Ď ZzK 1,i.e. with L1 Ě K 1. For the inverse implication it is likewise sufficient to show that for anyL1 P KAS1pZ, Tďq there is some K 1 P KS1pZ, Těq with K 1 Ě L1. Let first K 1 P KS1pZ, Těq.As we have seen in part “i) ùñ ii)” there is some b P ZzS 1 with K 1 Ď bs. ClearlyL1 – bs “ Zzpb is a closed subset of pZ, Tďq. Moreover L1 “ rqz, bs is surely a compact subsetof pZ, Tďq; cf. Detail 4 with reversed order or note that qz P L1 ca be covered by no openset from Tď, except for the whole space Z Ě L1. So L1 “ bs fulfills both L1 P KAS1pZ, Tďq

64

3.2 Normcoercive linear mappings

and L1 Ě K 1. Let to the contrary L1 P KAS1pZ, Tďq. Then ZzL1 is an open neighborhoodof pz and contains hence a set of the form pa with some a P ZzS 1 “ Zztpzu. Buildingcomplements transforms pa Ď ZzL1 into L1 Ď as — K 1. Again K 1 is a compact subset ofpZ, Těq, cf. Detail 4 in the Appendix. Moreover K 1 does not hit S 1 so that it fulfills bothK 1 P KS1pZ, Těq and K 1 Ě L1.

Theorem 3.1.7. Let pX, } ¨ }Xq be a normed space of finite dimension and pZ,ďq a totallyordered set. A coercive mapping F : pX, } ¨ }Xq Ñ pZ,ďq is already bounded below if it islocally bounded below.

Proof. If dimX “ 0, the image F rXs “ F rt0us consists of just one single point, so that F isbounded below by that value. If n – dimX P N we may without loss of generality assumethat pX, } ¨ }Xq “ pRn, } ¨ }q with some norm } ¨ } on Rn. After equipping the totally orderedspace pZ,ďq with the left order topology Tě the coercivity of the mapping F : pRn,O�nq ÑpZ,ďq corresponds to the topological strong coercivity of F : pRn,O�nq Ñ pZ, Těq towardsMAXďpZq by Lemma 3.1.6. Hence Proposition 2.4.23 ensures that the locally boundedbelow mapping F : pRn,O�nq Ñ pZ,ďq is even bounded below.

3.2 Normcoercive linear mappings

A linear mapping defined in any finite dimensional space is normcoercive if and only if itis injective:

Theorem 3.2.1. A linear mapping α : X Ñ Y of a finite-dimensional normed spacepX, } ¨ }Xq into a normed space pY, } ¨ }Y q is normcoercive if and only if its nullspace Njust consists of 0X .

Proof. In the case X “ t0u we clearly have N “ t0u; moreover there is no sequence pxnqnPN

with }xn} Ñ `8, as n Ñ `8, so that f is trivially normcoercive. Consider now the caseX Ą t0u. If N contains an element x ‰ 0X then α is not normcoercive since the sequencepxnqnPN defined by xn – nx fulfills }xn}X Ñ `8 but }α pxnq }Y “ n}α pxq }Y “ 0 Û `8for n Ñ `8. To show the other direction we assume that N “ t0Xu. Then the sphereS – tx P X : }x}X “ 1u is mapped by α to a set which omits 0Y . For this and by thecompactness of the nonempty set S we find a point x P S with

minxPS

}α pxq }Y “ }α pxq }Y ą 0.

By scaling with a positive number λ ą 0 we see that

min}x}X“λ

}α pxq }Y “ minxPλS

}α pxq }Y

“ λminxPλS

}α´xλ

¯}Y

“ λminxPS

}α pxq }Y“ λ}α pxq }Y .

65


This means that }α pxq }Y ě }x}X }α pxq }Ylooomoooną0

Ñ `8 for }x}X Ñ `8, i.e. α is normcoercive.

Corollary 3.2.2. Let

#α1 : X Ñ Y 1

α2 : X Ñ Y 2be linear mappings of a finite-dimensional normed

space pX, } ¨ }Xq into normed spaces pY 1, } ¨ }Y 1q, pY 2, } ¨ }Y 2q. If their nullspaces N 1, N 2

have only 0X in common then the linear mapping α : X Ñ Y 1 ˆ Y 2, given by

α pxq –

´α1pxqα2pxq

¯,

is normcoercive.

Proof. Since the nullspace N of α fulfills N “ N 1XN 2 “ t´

0Y 10Y 2

¯loomoon

“0Y

u we obtain the statement

by applying Theorem 3.2.1.

Definition 3.2.3. Let X “ X1 ‘ X2 be a direct decomposition of a real vector space X.The linear mapping πX1,X2

: X Ñ X1, given by

πX1,X2pxq “ πX1,X2

px1 ` x2q – x1

is called projection to X1 along X2. If X is equipped with some inner product x¨, ¨y suchthat X2 “ XK

1 we will also shortly write πX1.

Lemma 3.2.4. Let X “ X1 ‘ X2 and X “ W1 ‘ W2 be direct decompositions of a realvector space X. The following holds true:

i) The nullspace of πX1,X2is N pπX1,X2

q “ X2. In particular, for any subspace ĂX1 of X

which is also complementary to X2, the restriction πX1,X2|ĂX1

: ĂX1 Ñ X1 is a vector

space isomorphism between ĂX1 and X1.

ii) The linear mapping α : X Ñ X1 ˆ W1, given by

αpzq –

ˆπX1,X2

pzqπW1,W2

pzq

˙

has nullspace X2 XW2; in particular restricting α to any complementary subspace Z1

of X2 X W2 yields an injective mapping α|Z1: Z1 Ñ X1 ˆ W1.

iii) If x¨, ¨y is some inner product on X such that X2 “ XK1 and W2 “ WK

1 then the linearmapping α : X Ñ X1 ˆ W1, given by

αpzq –

ˆπX1

pzqπW1

pzq

˙

has nullspace XK1 XWK

1 . In particular the restriction α|X1`W1: X1 `W1 Ñ X1 ˆW1

is injective.

66

3.3 Semidirect sums and coercivity

Proof. i) Writing an arbitrarily chosen x P X in the form x “ x1 ` x2 with uniquelydetermined x1 P X1 and x2 P X2 we obtain

x P N pπX1,X2q ðñ πX1,X2

px1 ` x2q “ 0 ðñ x1 “ 0 ðñ x “ x2 ðñ x P X2

so that N pπX1,X2q “ X2. This implies that the restricted mapping πX1,X2

|ĂX1: ĂX1 Ñ X1 is

injective for any subspace ĂX1, which is also complementary to X2, since

N pπX1,X2|ĂX1

q “ N pπX1,X2q X ĂX1 “ X2 X ĂX1 “ t0u.

Due to

πX1,X2|ĂX1

rĂX1s “ πX1,X2rĂX1s “ πX1,X2

rĂX1 ‘ X2s “ πX1,X2rXs “ X1

the linear mapping πX1,X2| rX1

is also surjective and hence a vector space isomorphism.ii) Applying the just proven part twice we obtain for any x P X the equivalences

αpxq “ 0 ðñ πX1,X2pxq “ 0 ^ πW1,W2

pxq “ 0 ðñ x P X2 ^ x P W2 ðñ x P X2 X W2,

so that N pαq “ X2 X W2. Likewise as in the already proven part i) this implies that therestricted mapping α|Z1

: Z1 Ñ X1 ˆ W1 is injective for any subspace Z1 of X which iscomplementary to X2 X W2.iii) By the just proven previous part ii) we have N pαq “ X2 XW2 “ XK

1 XWK1 . Therefore

and since pXK1 X WK

1 q X pX1 ` W1q “ t0u, see Detail 11, we obtain

N pα|X1`W1q “ N pαq X pX1 ` W1q “ pXK

1 X WK1 q X pX1 ` W1q “ t0u.

Hence α|X1`W1is injective.


In this subsection we consider functions F,G : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u, which allow a certaindecomposition into coercive and locally bounded from below parts F1 : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u,G1 : Y1 Ñ R Y t`8u and bounded from below parts F2 : X2 Ñ R Y t`8u, G2 : Y2 ÑR Y t`8u and prove a sufficient criteria for F `G beeing coercive on a subspace Z1. Theexact result is stated in Theorem 3.3.6.

The mentioned decomposability of F means more precisely that F can be written as some,to be introduced, semidirect sum F “ F1 ZF2. The demanded boundedness assumptionsfor F2 and G2 allows us to replace F2 and G2 by the constant zero functions 0X2

and 0Y2 .Working with the simpler direct decompositions F1 Z 0X2

and G1 Z 0Y2 is the core of theproofs in this subsection.

Definition 3.3.1. Let X “ X1 ‘ X2 be a direct decomposition of a real vector space X.The semi-direct sum of functions F1 : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u and F2 : X2 Ñ R Y t`8u is thefunction F1 ZF2 : X Ñ R Y t`8u, given by

pF1 ZF2qpx1 ` x2q – F1px1q ` F2px2q

67


Remark 3.3.2. Although the notation X1 ‘ X2 for the underlying spaces suggests thesimilar notation F1 ‘ F2 for a pair of functions defined on X1 and X2, respectively, weprefer the notation F1 ZF2 for the following reason: If ĂF1 : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u and rF2 :

X2 Ñ R Y t`8u are mappings with F1 ZF2 “ ĂF1 Z rF2 we can in general not conclude

that F1 “ ĂF1 and F2 “ rF2; for real-valued functions we can conclude only that there is aconstant C P R such that F1 “ ĂF1 `C and F2 “ rF2 ´C, see Detail 12 – moreover not eventhe latter is in general true, if one of the four functions takes the value `8, see Detail 13.But at least we have

F1 ZF2 “ ĂF1 ZF2 ùñ F1 “ ĂF1, (3.5)

if F2 is real-valued; note here that F1 and ĂF1 have the same domain of definition!

Lemma 3.3.3. Let Rn “ X1 ‘ X2 “ Y1 ‘ Y2 be decompositions of Rn into subspaces andlet F1 : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u, G1 : Y1 Ñ R Y t`8u be mappings. The following holds true:

i) For every subspace ĂX1 of Rn which is also complementary to X2 there is exactly one

mapping ĂF1 : ĂX1 Ñ R Y t`8u with

ĂF1 Z 0X2“ F1 Z 0X2

,

namely the function ĂF1 “ F1 ˝ πX1,X2|ĂX1

“ pF1 Z 0X2q|ĂX1

. In particular F1 is coercive

iff rF1 is coercive.

ii) For any subspace Z1 of Rn which is complementary to X2 X Y2 — Z2 we have

H – pF1 Z 0X2q ` pG1 Z 0Y2q “ H1 Z 0X2XY2 ,

where H1 – H |Z1“ F1 ˝ πX1,X2

|Z1` G1 ˝ πY1,Y2 |Z1

. If X1 K X2 and Y1 K Y2 holdstrue in addition we can choose Z1 “ X1 ` Y1.

Proof. i) We first show the uniqueness of ĂF1. To this end let Φ1 : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u be

a mapping with Φ1 Z 0X2“ ĂF1 Z 0X2

. Clearly the mapping 0X2is real-valued so that

we get Φ1 “ ĂF1 by (3.5). Next we show that ĂF1 “ F1 ˝ πX1,X2|ĂX1

fulfills the claimed

equality ĂF1 Z 0X2“ F1 Z 0X2

. To this end we write an arbitrarily chosen x P Rn in the

forms x “ x1 ` x2 “ rx1 ` x12 with x1 P X1, rx1 P ĂX1 and x2, x

12 P X2. Then πX1,X2

prx1q “πX1,X2

px1 ` px2 ´ x12qq “ x1, so that ĂF1prx1q “ F1pπX1,X2

prx1qq “ F1px1q. Therefrom weobtain

pF1 Z 0X2qpxq “ pF1 Z 0X2

qpx1 ` x2q “ F1px1q ` 0 “ ĂF1prx1q ` 0 “ pĂF1 Z 0X2qprx1 ` x1

2q“ pĂF1 Z 0X2

qpxq

68


as well as F1 ˝ πX1,X2|ĂX1

“ pF1 Z 0X2q|ĂX1

since

F1 ˝ πX1,X2|ĂX1

prx1q “ F1px1q “ F1px1q ` 0X2px2 ´ x1

2q “ pF1 Z 0X2qpx1 ` x2 ´ x1

2q“ pF1 Z 0X2

q|ĂX1prx1q.

It remains to show that F1 is coercive iff rF1 “ F1 ˝ πX1,X2|ĂX1

is coercive. To this end notethat

π – πX1,X2|ĂX1

: ĂX1 Ñ X1

is a vector space isomorphism by part i) of Lemma 3.2.4. Since the spaces ĂX1 and X1 areof finite dimension the mapping π is even a bicontinuous vector space isomorphism. Inparticular the equivalence

} rx1pnq} Ñ `8 ðñ }πp rx1pnqq} Ñ `8

holds true for all sequences p rx1pnqqnPN in ĂX1 so that

ĂF1p rx1q Ñ `8 as } rx1} Ñ `8, rx1 P ĂX1

ðñ F1pπp rx1qq Ñ `8 as }πp rx1q} Ñ `8, rx1 P ĂX1

ðñ F1px1q Ñ `8 as }x1} Ñ `8, x1 P X1.

ii) We first show that H1 – H |Z1“ F1 ˝ πX1,X2

|Z1` G1 ˝ πY1,Y2|Z1

. Writing an arbitrarilychosen z1

1 P Z1 in the forms z11 “ x1

1 `x12 “ y1

1 `y12, where x1

1 P X1, x12 P X2 and y1

1 P Y1, y12 P

Y2, we indeed get

H1pz11q “ pF1 Z 0X2

qpz11q ` pG1 Z 0Y2qpz1

1q “ pF1 Z 0X2qpx1

1 ` x12q ` pG1 Z 0Y2qpy1

1 ` y12q

“ F1px11q ` G1py1

1q “ F1pπX1,X2px1

1 ` x12qq ` G1pπY1,Y2py1

1 ` y12qq

“ rF1 ˝ πX1,X2` G1 ˝ πY1,Y2spz1

1q.

In order to prove pF1 Z 0X2q ` pG1 Z 0Y2q “ H1 Z 0X2XY2 we write an arbitrarily chosen

x P Rn in the forms x “ x1 ` x2 “ y1 ` y2 “ z1 ` z2 where each vector is an element of thesimilar denoted subspace. Using πX1,X2

pz1q “ πX1,X2px1 ` px2 ´ z2qq “ x1, πY1,Y2pz1q “ y1

and the previous calculation we obtain

H1 Z 0X2XY2pxq “ H1pz1q ` 0 “ F1pπX1,X2pz1qq ` G1pπY1,Y2pz1qq “ F1px1q ` 0 ` G1py1q ` 0

“ pF1 Z 0X2qpx1 ` x2q ` pG1 Z 0Y2qpy1 ` y2q “ Hpxq.

If X1 K X2 and Y1 K Y2 we can choose Z1 “ X1`Y1 since pX1`Y1qK “ XK1 XY K

1 “ X2XY2so that in particular Rn “ pX1 ` Y1q ‘ pX2 X Y2q.

69


Theorem 3.3.4. Let Rn “ X1 ‘ X2 be a direct decomposition of Rn into subspaces X1

and X2 and let F1 : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u be coercive and F2 : X2 Ñ R Y t`8u be boundedbelow. Every function F : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u with F ě F1 ZF2 is then coercive on all those

subspaces ĂX1 of Rn which are complementary to X2, i.e. which give a direct decompositionĂX1 ‘ X2 “ Rn “ X1 ‘ X2.

Proof. Since F2 is bounded below there is a constant m P R with

F2px2q ě m

for all x2 P X2. Due to F ě F1 ZF2 ě pF1 Z 0X2q ` m it suffices to show that F1 Z 0X2

:

Rn Ñ R Y t`8u is coercive on every subspace ĂX1 of Rn which is complementary to X2.

The latter however follows from part i) of Lemma 3.3.3 after fixing any subspace ĂX1 and

setting ĂF1 – pF1 Z 0X2q|ĂX1

.

As word of warning note that, in contrast to part i) in Lemma 3.3.3, the previous theorem

states no equivalence between the coercivity of F1 and rF1 – F1|ĂX1but states only that the

coercivity of F1 carries over to rF1 if the assumptions of the previous theorem are fulfilled.If F2 is not constant zero the reverse implication is in general not true as the followingexample shows:

Example 3.3.5. Consider the direct decompositions R2 “ X1 ‘ X2 “ ĂX1 ‘ X2 with the

one dimensional subspaces X1 – Rp1, 0qT, X2 – Rp0, 1qT and ĂX1 – Rp1, 1qT. Consider

the functions F1 : X1 Ñ R, F2 : X2 Ñ R and ĂF1 : ĂX1 Ñ R given by

F1 – 0X1, F2px2q – }x2}22,

ĂF1 – pF1 ZF2loomoon—F

q|ĂX1.

Clearly F2 is bounded below. Moreover ĂF1 : ĂX1 Ñ R is coercive since ĂF1ppξ, ξqTq “F ppξ, ξqTq “ ξ2 Ñ `8 as }pξ, ξqT}2 Ñ `8. However the function F1 is clearly notcoercive. Note that this does not contradict the previous theorem since it is not even pos-sible to write F “ F1 ZF2 in the form F “ ĂF1 ZΦ2 with a function Φ2 : X2 Ñ R Y t`8u;if that would be possible the function Φ2 would actually be finite and the mapping

g : x2 ÞÑ F`p1, 1qT ` x2

˘´ F

`p0, 0qT ` x2

˘“ ĂF1

`p1, 1qT

˘´ ĂF1

`p0, 0qT

˘

would be constant on whole X2. That is however clearly not the case; for instance we havegpp0, 0qTq “ F pp1, 1qTq ´F pp0, 0qTq “ 1´ 0 “ 1 and gpp0, 3qTq “ F pp1, 4qTq ´F pp0, 3qTq “16 ´ 9 “ 7.

Theorem 3.3.6. Let Rn “ X1‘X2 “ Y1‘Y2 be direct decompositions of Rn into subspacesand let F1 : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u, G1 : Y1 Ñ R Y t`8u be both coercive and locally bounded

70


below and let F2 : X2 Ñ R Y t`8u, G2 : Y2 Ñ R Y t`8u be bounded below. Then the sumF ` G : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u of functions F ě F1 ZF2 and G ě G1 ZG2 is coercive on allthose vector subspaces Z1 of Rn with Rn “ Z1 ‘ pX2 X Y2q. In particular F `G is coerciveon X1 ` Y1, if X1 K X2 and Y1 K Y2 hold additionally true.

Before proving the theorem we give a remark on two important assumptions.

Remark 3.3.7. It is important to demand locally boundedness of F1 and G1, see Example3.3.8. In case of a non-orthogonal decomposition there is no guarantee that F ` G iscoercive on X1 ` Y1 as Example 3.3.9 shows.

Proof of Theorem 3.3.6. Since F2 and G2 are bounded below there is a constant m2 P R

with

F2px2q ě m2, G2py2q ě m2

for all x2 P X2, y2 P Y2. Hence F ` G ě pF1 Z 0X2q ` pG1 Z 0Y2q ` 2m2, so that it

suffices to show that pF1 Z 0X2q ` pG1 Z 0Y2q — H is coercive on any subspace Z1 which is

complementary to pX2 X Y2q — Z2. Concerning the domains of definition X1, Y1 and Z1

of the mappings F1, G1 and H1 – H |Z1, respectively, we may, without loss of generality,

assume X1 “ XK2 , Y1 “ Y K

2 and Z1 “ ZK2 , respectively, see Detail 15. In order to prove

that H1 is coercive let any sequence pzkqkPN in Z1 “ pX2 XY2qK “ XK2 `Y K

2 “ X1 `Y1 with}zk} Ñ `8 for k Ñ `8 be given. The claimed H1pzkq Ñ `8 as k Ñ `8 holds triviallytrue, if there is a K P N such that H1pzkq “ `8 for all k ě K. If there is no such K wemay without loss of generality assume H1pzkq P R for all k P N. Since both F1 and G1 arebounded below, see Detail 14, there is a constant m1 P R such that

F1pxq ě m1, G1pyq ě m1

for all x P X1, y P Y1. Therefore and by part ii) of Lemma 3.3.3 we obtain

H1pzkq “ F1

`πX1

pzkq˘

` G1

`πY1pzkq

˘

ě max F1

`πX1

pzkq˘, G1

`πY1pzkq

˘(`m1

“››››ˆF1

`πX1

pzkq˘

G1

`πY1pzkq

˘˙››››

8

` m1

“››› qApqαpzkqq

›››8

` m1,

where

qApx, yq –

ˆF1pxqG1pyq

˙, qαpzq –

ˆπX1

pzqπY1pzq

˙;

the mappings qA : D qA Ñ R2 and qα : Dqα Ñ D qA, are here defined on the nonempty sets

D qA – tpx1, y1q P X1 ˆ Y1 : F1px1q, G1py1q P Ru Ď X1 ˆ Y1

71


and

Dqα – tz1 P Z1 “ X1 ` Y1 : pπX1pqz1q, πY1pqz1qqT P D qAu Ď X1 ` Y1 Ď R

n,

respectively. The mappings qA and qα are restrictions of the likewise defined mappingsA : X1 ˆ Y1 Ñ pR Y t`8uq ˆ pR Y t`8uq and α : Rn Ñ X1 ˆ Y1, respectively. Due

to the previous estimate it suffices to show that qA ˝ qα : Dqα Ñ R2 is normcoercive. Partiii) of Lemma 3.2.4 ensures that α|X1`Y1 is injective. The normcoercivity of α|X1`Y1 ishence obtained by Theorem 3.2.1 and carries over to qα “ α|Dqα. In order to prove the

normcoercivity of qA we write its domain of definition in the form

D qA “ tpx1, y1q P X1 ˆ Y1 : F1px1q P R, G1py1q P Ru“ tx1 P X1 : F1px1q P Rulooooooooooooomooooooooooooon

— qX

ˆ ty1 P Y1 : G1py1q P Ruloooooooooooomoooooooooooon—qY

and restrict the coercive and hence normcoercive functions F1 and G1 to F1| qX — qF and

G1|qY — qG, respectively. Applying Lemma 3.1.4 to

qAp¨, ‚q “˜

qF p¨qqGp‚q

¸

gives then the normcoercivity of qA. Finally the concatenation qA ˝ qα of the normcoercivemappings is again normcoercive by Theorem 3.1.3.

Example 3.3.8. Consider the functions F,G : R2 Ñ R given by

F px1, x2q –

#x21 ´ 1

x41

for x1 ‰ 0

0 for x1 “ 0, Gpx1, x2q –

#x22 for x2 ‰ 0

0 for x2 “ 0.

Setting

X1 – spanpe1q, Y1 – spanpe2q “ X2,

X2 – spanpe2q, Y2 – spanpe1q “ X1,

F1 –F |X1, G1 –G|Y1 “ G|X2

,

F2 –0X2, G2 –0Y2 “ 0X1

,

we can write F and G as semidirect sums

F “ F1 ZF2 G “ G1 ZG2.

Clearly all assumptions of Theorem 3.3.6 are fulfilled – except for one: The function F1

fails to be locally bounded below, because of the exceptional point p0, 0q P X1. Setting

xpnq – pxpnq1 , x

pnq2 q – p 1

n, nq

72


gives a sequence pxpnqqnPN with }xpnq} Ñ `8 as n Ñ `8 for which

F pxpnqq ` Gpxpnqq “´ 1n

¯2

´ 1

p 1n

q4 ` n2 “ ´n4 ` n2 ` 1n2 Ñ ´8 ‰ `8

as n Ñ `8. In particular the sum F ` G is not coercive on the complementary subspaceX1 ` Y1 “ R2 of X2 X Y2 “ t0u.

Example 3.3.9. Consider the function H : R2 Ñ R, given by Hpx1, x2q – x21 and regardit with respect to the decompositions

R2 “ span pe1qlooomooon

—X1

‘ span pe2qlooomooon—X2

“ span pe1 ` e2qlooooooomooooooon—Y1

‘ span pe2qlooomooon—Y2

,

the first beeing an orthogonal one and the second beeing a non orthogonal one. Clearly His coercive both on X1 and Y1. Moreover H is bounded below on X2 “ Y2 since it is evenconstant there. Setting

F1 – H |X1, G1 – H |Y1 ,

F2 – H |X2” 0, G2 – H |Y2 ” 0

we can write the functions F – H and G – H as semidirect sums

F “ F1 ZF2, G “ G1 ZG2.

In accordance with the previous theorem we see that F`G “ 2H is coercive on any subspaceZ1 of R2 with R2 “ Z1 ‘ pX2 X Y2q. However X1 ` Y1 “ R2 is none of these subspaces andF ` G “ 2H is clearly not coercive on X1 ` Y1 “ R2 Ě spanpe2q.

73

CHAPTER 4

Penalizers and constraints in convex

problems

Outline

4.1 Unconstrained perspective versus constrained perspective . . . . . . . . . . . 75

4.1.1 A kind of dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

4.1.2 Definition of 0 ¨ p`8q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4.1.3 Definition of argmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

4.2 Penalizers and constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

4.2.1 Relation between solvers of constrained and penalized problems . . . 80

4.2.2 Fenchel duality relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

4.2.3 Notes to Theorem 4.2.6 and to some technical assumptions . . . . . . 88

4.3 Assisting theory with examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4.3.1 Convex functions and their periods space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

4.3.2 Operations that preserve essentially smoothness . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

4.3.3 Operations that preserve decomposability into a innerly strictly convex

and a constant part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

4.3.4 Existence and direction of argminpF `Gq for certain classes of functions106

4.4 Homogeneous penalizers and constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

4.4.1 Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

4.4.2 Properties of the solver sets and the relation between their parameters 115

4.1 Unconstrained perspective versus constrained

perspective

This section consists of three subsections. In subsections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, respectively,different possibilities of defining 0 ¨ p`8q and the set argminF of minimizers of a functionF : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u are dicussed among their pros and cons, respectively. We finially

75

4. Penalizers and constraints in convex problems

choose the definitions

0 ¨ p`8q – 0

and

argminF – tx P Rn : F pxq ď F pxq for all x P R

nu.

These definitions are suggested when regarding minimizations problems of the form

F1 ` λF2 Ñ min

from an “uncounstrained perspecitive”, which we prefer to take instead of the alternative“constrained perspecitive”.

Subsection 4.1.1 serves as introduction to the already discussed Subsections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3,giving a summarizing and connecting overview of the main ideas presented there, alongwith our concept to keep the gap between the two different perspectives as closed as possiblein the following sections.

We finally mention that we use quite often quotation marks in this section, usually at placeswhere, sometimes hidden, unanswered questions lurk. However these implicit questions canbe ignored when regarding this section just as motivation for our way of defining 0 ¨ p`8qand argminF .

4.1.1 A kind of dilemma

Consider for a possibly empty, fixed subset C Ď Rn those pairs of mappings

F : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u, f : C Ñ R,

which are related in a one to one manner by domF “ C and F |domF “ f . We will alsowrite F “ f and f “ F to indicate that F and f are related in that manner. Twothings need to be defined: argminF and 0 ¨ p`8q. If we want to take an “unconstrainedperspective” we should define


nu, 0 ¨ p`8q – 0.

If we prefer to take a “constrained perspective” we should define

argminF – tx P domF : F pxq ď F pxq for all x P domF u, 0 ¨ p`8q – `8.

The decision we have to take will turn out to be in a way a dilemma: On the one hand wewould like the minimization problems argminF vs. argmin f and “especially” the minimiza-tion problems argminF “ argminpΦ`λΨq vs. argmin f “ argminpφ`λψq, λ P r0,`8q, tobe always equivalent. To this end we should choose the definitions fitting to the constrainedperspective. On the other hand we would like to avoid a clash with a definition of argmin

76

4.1 Unconstrained perspective versus constrained perspective

in a general situation and – even more important – want the equation Φ ` 0Ψ “ Φ tohold true. To that end we should, however, choose the definitions from the unconstrainedperspective.

We are aware that it is unfortunately not uncommon to define argmin fitting to the con-strained perspective and 0 ¨ p`8q – 0 fitting to the unconstrained perspective. We tryto avoid this mixture of, in general not equivalent, perspectives at the level of defini-tions. Instead we will follow the unconstrained perspective here and pursue the strategyof imposing conditions in our theorems that ensure at least a weak form of equivalencebetween the unconstrained and the constrained perspective. For instance conditions likedomΦ X domΨ “ H in Theorem 4.2.6 ensure F – Φ ` λΨ ı `8 for λ P r0,8q, sothat the unconstrained and the constrained perspective of the minimization problem areequivalent here, at least in the sense of argminF “ argmin f ; for λ P p0,`8q we even haveequivalence in a stronger sense, since

pΦ ` λΨq “ Φ ` λΨ.

holds in addition. This is, however, no longer true for λ “ 0, if domΨ Ğ domΦ. Itis the price we have to pay to ensure Φ ` 0Ψ “ Φ without putting further assumptionslike domΨ Ě domΦ. Note that a more general version of this inclusion, was assumed byRockafellar in his chapter on Ordinary Convex Problems and Lagrange multipliers, cf. [19,p. 273].

The following table gives a summarized overview. Some details can be found in the nextsubsections.

unconstrained perspective constrained perspectiveDefinition of 0 ¨ p`8q 0 `8Definition of argminF tx P Rn : tx P domF :

@x P Rn : F pxq ď F pxqu @x P domF : F pxq ď F pxquargminF “ argmin f for F ı `8 alwaysargmintF1 ` ιlevτF2

u “ for domF1 X levτF2 “ H alwaysargmintF1 s.t. F2 ď τupF1 ` λF2q “ F1 ` λF2 for λ P Rzt0u for every λ P R

F1 ` 0F2 “ F1 always true only true if domF2 Ě domF1

F lsc ñ λF lsc for λ P r0,`8q in general only for λ P p0,`8q

4.1.2 Definition of 0 ¨ ppp`888qqqLet φ : Cφ Ñ R and ψ : Cψ Ñ R be mappings with domains Cφ Ď R

n and Cψ Ď Rn,

respectively, and let Φ – φ and Ψ – ψ denote their natural continuations to functionsRn Ñ R Y t`8u. In the constrained perspective we want Φ ` λΨ to be the “exact” twin

of φ ` λψ for all λ P r0,8q, i.e. we want

pΦ ` λΨq “ Φ ` λΨ “ φ ` λψ

77


to hold true. For λ P p0,`8q this equation is always fulfilled. For λ “ 0 it is howeverin general only true, if we would set 0 ¨ p`8q to be `8; choosing any other value fromr0,`8q for this product, let us say the value 0, would cause the domain of definition ofpΦ` 0Ψq to be different from the domain of definition of Φ` 0Ψ, if domΨ Ğ domΦ: Herethe domain of definition of pΦ ` 0Ψq “ Φ equals Cφ “ domΦ, whereas the domain ofdefinition of Φ ` 0Ψ is Cφ X Cψ “ domΦ X domΨ Ă domΦ.

In the unconstrained perspective we concede Φ`λΨ a mode of being that is beyond beinga copy of φ`λψ, made up for technical purposes; Here we consider Φ,Ψ and Φ`λΨ in firstline “really” as mappings Rn Ñ R Y t`8u which all have the same domain of definition.This allows us to achieve Φ ` 0Ψ “ Φ by setting

0 ¨ p`8q – 0.

With this definition we accept that the identity pΦ` λΨq “ Φ` λΨ “ φ` λψ may fail forλ “ 0.

Finally we remark that our definition of 0 ¨ p`8q seems to be the “correct” one from theviewpoint of lower semicontinous functions: If Ψ : Rn Ñ RYt`8u is lower semicontinuousthen so is λΨ for all λ P p0,`8q and also for λ “ 0, thanks to our definition 0 ¨ p`8q – 0.Note that lower semicontinuity would, however, in general not be preserved, if we hadchosen 0 ¨ p`8q to be `8 in the constrained perspective’s sense: Consider the functionψ : p0,`8q Ñ R, given by ψpxq – 1

x. Its natural continuation Ψ – ψ : Rn Ñ RY t`8u is

lower semicontinous, but its product 0¨Ψ (in the constrained perspective’s sense!) would notbe lower semicontinous, since its epigraph would be the non-closed set p0,`8q ˆ r0,`8q.

4.1.3 Definition of argmin

Let f : C Ñ R be some real-valued function, defined on some subset C Ă Rn and letF – f be its natural continuation to a function Rn Ñ R Y t`8u.In the constrained perspective we regard F as a kind of working copy of f ; in particularwe want the equation argminF “ argmin f to hold always true. Defining argminF astx P domF : F pxq ď F pxq for all x P domF u would do the job.

In the unconstrained perspective we, however, want to minimize F “really” over Rn, itswhole domain of definition, so that we define


nu

We then still have argminF “ argmin f , except for the particular case F ” `8 where weunfortunately get argminF “ R

n “ H “ argmin f .

Despite this small disadvantage we nevertheless define argminF according to the uncon-strained perspective – not only because we had already decided us for this perspectivewhen defining 0 ¨ p`8q – 0 but also for the sake of consistency with the definition ofargmin in the following more general situation: Assume we want to define argminH for a

78

4.2 Penalizers and constraints

quite general function H : X Ñ Y between a (possibly empty) set X and a totally orderedset pY,ďY q. The natural choice for defining the (possibly empty) set of minimizers seemsto be

argminH – tx P X : Hpxq ďY Hpxq for all x P Xu.Our de facto definition of argminF appears then just as a special case for X “ Rn,Y “ p´8,`8s with the natural order and H “ F . In contrast, the rejected, constrainedperspective way of defining argminF would clash to the general definition for F ” `8.

We conclude this section with a remark to the constrained optimization problem

argmintF1 s.t. F2 ď τu – tx P Rn : F2pxq ď τ and F1pxq ď F1pxq for all x P levτF2u,

where τ P R and F1, F2 : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u. In the constrained perspective we can alwaysrewrite it to argmintF1 ` ιlevτF2

u. In the unconstrained perspective we can do this howeveronly if F1 ` ιlevτF2

ı `8, i.e. if the overlapping condition domF1 X levτF2 “ H is fulfilled.A similar condition which ensures a stronger overlapping between domF1 and levτF2 isused in part i) of Theorem 4.2.6. The question is also if we should at all speak of the’constrained problem’ argmintF1 s.t. F2 ď τu, defined as above, in the context of ourunconstrained perspective, or if we should consider just the problem argminF1 ` ιlevτF2

instead.


This section consists of three subsections: In the first subsection we review general relationsbetween the constrained problem

pP1,τ q argminxPRn

tΦpxq s.t. Ψpxq ď τu (4.1)

and the unconstrained, penalized problem

pP2,λq argminxPRn

tΦpxq ` λΨpxqu, λ ě 0. (4.2)

This relation is stated in Detail in Theorem 4.2.6. In the second subsection we add to aprimal problem, which can be the constrained or the penalized problem, the correspond-ing Fenchel Dual problem along with conditions that characterize their solutions. In thethird subsection we discuss Theorem 4.2.6. In particular a relation between one of itsassumptions and Slater’s Constraint Qualification is given.

4.2.1 Relation between solvers of constrained and penalized

problems

In this subsection there are two lemmas and one theorem along with their proofs andsome examples. The first Lemma 4.2.1 is an auxiliary lemma for the second Lemma

79


4.2.3. The latter lemma gives a relation between the subgradients BΨpx˚q and BιSpx˚q,where S – levΨpx˚qΨ. This relation is used to prove Theorem 4.2.6, which gives relationsbetween solvers of SOLpP1,τ q and SOLpP2,λq. For comments on this subsection see Section4.2.3.

Lemma 4.2.1. Let Ψ : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u be a proper and convex function, x˚ P domΨ

and S – levΨpx˚qΨ. Let p P Rn such that the half-space Hďp,α with α – xp, x˚y contains S.

Then we have the equality

infxPH“

p,α

Ψpxq “ Ψpx˚q, (4.3)

if x˚ P intpdomΨq or if both x˚ P ripdomΨq and S is not completely contained in H“p,α.

Proof. For n “ 0 the assertion of the Lemma is trivially true. Without loss of generalitywe may therefore assume n ě 1 in the following. We first consider the case x˚ P intpdomΨq.Assume that there exists y P H“

p,α such that Ψpyq ă Ψpx˚q. Since y, x˚ P domΨ, we see bythe convexity of Ψ that

Ψpλy ` p1 ´ λqx˚loooooooomoooooooon—xλ

q ď λΨpyq ` p1 ´ λqΨpx˚q ă Ψpx˚q

for all λ P p0, 1q. Since x˚ P intpdomΨq we have xλ P intpdomΨq for λ small enough. SinceΨ is continuous on intpdomΨq, there exists ε ą 0 such that the Euclidean ball Bεpxλq cen-tered at xλ with radius ε fulfills Bεpxλq Ď intpdomΨq and Ψpxq ă Ψpx˚q for all x P Bεpxλq.Hence we obtain by the assumption on S and p the inclusion Bεpxλq Ď S Ď Hď

p,α so that

Bεpxλq X Hąp,α “ H. This contradicts xλ P H“

p,α.The remaining case can be reduced to this argument: Without loss of generality we mayassume x˚ to be the point of origin, so that H“

p,α and affpdomΨq — U are vector sub-spaces of Rn; note herein x˚ P ripdomΨq Ď affpdomΨq. For simplicity of perception wemay without loss of generality assume further, that p is of the form p “ p0, . . . , 0, 1q, i.e.H“p,α “ Rn´1 ˆ t0u and Hď

p,α “ Rn´1 ˆ p´8, 0s. The level set S Ď Hďp,α is not completely

contained in H“p,α. Therefore H“

p,α, or rather H“ – H“p,α XU , must separate U in an upper

part Hě – Hěp,α XU and a lower part Hď – Hď

p,α XU ; note here that Hě is a hyperplanein U “ affpdomΨq by Detail 16. Due to Hď Ě S and since infxPH“

p,αΨpxq “ infxPH“ Ψpxq

we can consider Ψ only on U “ affpdomΨq and then argue just as before in this vectorsubspace, using x˚ to be an interior point of S (considered of course as subset of U). l

Remark 4.2.2.

i) In cases where affpdomΨq is the full space Rn, i.e. where intpdomΨq “ ripdomΨq,the condition x˚ P intpdomΨq is, in general, really necessary to get the equality (4.3)as Fig. 4.1 illustrates.

80


Figure 4.1: Illustration that relation (4.3) is in general not valid for x˚ P domΨzintpdomΨq.

ii) In cases where affpdomΨq Ă Rn, i.e. where intpdomΨq “ H, the condition x˚ PripdomΨq in general really needs to be complemented by the condition S Ę H“

p,α toget the equality (4.3), see the second part of Remark 4.2.5 or make the followinggedankenexperiment: Look at Figure 4.1 and regard the two dimensional effectivedomain of Ψ as x1-x2-plane of R3, i.e. extend the there sketched function Ψ : R2 ÑR Y t`8u to a function Ψ : R3 Ñ R Y t`8u by setting

Ψpx1, x2, x3q –

#Ψpx1, x2q if x3 “ 0

`8 if x3 “ 0.

Move now x˚ and the line H“p,α to some place in ripdomΨqz argminΨ but change the

direction of H“p,α, if necessary, in such a way that we still have S – levΨpx˚qΨ Ď Hď

p,α.

Consider finally the line H“p,α as part of a plane H“

p,α with p P R3zt0u and α – xp, x˚y.As long as we consider only such planes H“

p,α which are not identical to the x1-x2-plane affpdomΨq, but intersect this plane only in H“

p,α, everything keeps essentially

the same as before: Also H“p,α separates domΨ at x˚ P ripdomΨq into two parts,

such that S is completely contained in Hďp,α. Such a separation is, however, no longer

performed by H“p,α if it is identical to the x1-x2-plane. In this case equation (4.3) is

clearly no longer fulfilled.

The following lemma will be used in our proof of Theorem 4.2.6.

Lemma 4.2.3. Let Ψ : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u be a proper, convex function, x˚ P domΨ andS – levΨpx˚qΨ. Then we have

R`0 BΨpx˚q Ď BιSpx˚q. (4.4)

81


If x˚ is not a minimizer of Ψ we moreover have

BιSpx˚q “ R`0 BΨpx˚q if x˚ P ripdomΨq, (4.5)

BιSpx˚q “ R`0 BΨpx˚q if x˚ P intpdomΨq, or in other words (4.6)

if x˚ P ripdomΨq and affpdomΨq “ Rn.

A proof of a similar lemma for finite functions Ψ : Rn Ñ R based on cone relationscan be found, e.g., in [12, p. 245]. Here we provide a proof which uses the epigraphicalprojection, also known as inf-projection as defined in [20, p. 18+, p. 51]. For a functionf : Rn ˆ R

m Ñ R Y t`8u, the inf-projection is defined by νpuq – infx fpx, uq. The name’epigraphical projection’ is due to the following fact: epi ν is the image of epi f under theprojection px, u, αq ÞÑ pu, αq, if argminx fpx, uq is attained for each u P dom ν. (Note thatthis is not the projection onto epigraphs as used, e.g., in [2, p. 427].) The inf-projection isconvexity preserving, i.e., if f is convex, then ν is also convex, cf. [20, Proposition 2.22].

Proof. 1. First we show that R`0 BΨpx˚q Ď BιSpx˚q. By definition of the subdifferential

we obtain

q P BΨpx˚q ðñ @x P Rn : xq, x´ x˚y ď Ψpxq ´ Ψpx˚q,

ùñ @x P S : xq, x´ x˚y ď 0

Hence we obtain the above inclusion by

p P BιSpx˚q ðñ @x P S : xp, x´ x˚y ď 0. (4.7)

2. Next we prove BιSpx˚q Ď R`0 BΨpx˚q if x˚ is not a minimizer of Ψ and the additional

assumptions in (4.6) are fulfilled, so that x˚ P intpdomΨq. Let p P BιSpx˚q. If p is thezero vector, then we are done since BΨpx˚q “ H. In the following we assume that p is notthe zero vector. It remains to show that there exists h ą 0 such that 1

hp P BΨpx˚q. We

can restrict our attention to p “ p0, . . . , 0, pnqT with pn ą 0. (Otherwise we can perform asuitable rotation of the coordinate system.) Then (4.7) becomes

p P BιSpx˚q ðñ @x “ px, xnq P S : pnxn ď pnx˚n. (4.8)

Hence we can apply lemma 4.2.1 with p “ p0, . . . , 0, pnqT and obtain

inftxPRn:xn“x˚

nuΨpxq “ Ψpx˚q.

Introducing the inf-projection ν : R Ñ R Y t˘8u by

νpxnq – infxPRn´1

Ψpx, xnq.

this can be rewritten asνpx˚

nq “ Ψpx˚q. (4.9)

82


Therefore we have

1

hp “ p0, . . . , 0, 1

hpnqT P BΨpx˚q ðñ @x P R

n : Ψpxq ě νpx˚nq ` 1

hpnpxn ´ x˚

nq

ðñ @xn P R : νpxnq ě νpx˚nq ` 1

hpnpxn ´ x˚

nq

ðñ 1

hpn P Bνpx˚

nq,

so that it remains to show that Bνpx˚nq contains a positive number. By (4.9) we verify that

νpx˚nq is finite. Moreover, x˚ P intpdomΨq implies x˚

n P intpdomνq. Therefore Bνpx˚nq “ H.

Let qn P Bνpx˚nq, i.e.,

qnpxn ´ x˚nq ď νpxnq ´ νpx˚

nqfor all xn P R. Since x˚ is not a minimizer of Ψ, there exists y P Rn with Ψpyq ă Ψpx˚q andwe get by (4.8) that yn ď x˚

n. Since yn “ x˚n would by (4.9) imply that Ψpx˚q “ νpynq ď

Ψpyq, we even have yn ă x˚n. Thus

qnpyn ´ x˚nq ď νpynq ´ νpx˚

nq ď Ψpyq ´ Ψpx˚q ă 0

implies qn ą 0 and we are done.3. Next we prove BιSpx˚q Ď R

`0 BΨpx˚q if x˚ is not a minimizer of Ψ and x˚ P ripdomΨq;

then taking closures in R`0 BΨpx˚q Ď BιSpx˚q Ď R

`0 BΨpx˚q gives the wanted BιSpx˚q “

R`0 BΨpx˚q since BιSpx˚q is closed.

We have x˚ P dom ιS “ S Ď domΨ, so that both effective domains are in particularcontained in affpdomΨq — A. Applying Theorem B.17 two times yields hence

BιSpx˚q “ BpιS|Aqpx˚q ` UK,

BΨpx˚q “ BpΨ|Aqpx˚q ` UK,

where U is the difference space of A. By part 2. of the proof we know BpιS|Aqpx˚q “R

`0 BpΨ|Aqpx˚q. So the claimed BιSpx˚q Ď R

`0 BΨpx˚q is equivalent to R

`0 BpΨ|Aqpx˚q `UK Ď

R`0 rBpΨ|Aqpx˚q ` UKs and can hence be proved by showing that the relation

R`0 B ` W Ď R

`0 pB ` W q

holds true for any subsets B,W of Rn with R`0W “ W . To this end let λ P R

`0 , b P B and

w P W be given. In case λ “ 0 we have λb`w “ λpb`λ´1wq P R`0 pB`W q Ď R

`0 pB ` W q.

In case λ “ 0 we have λb ` w “ 0b ` w “ limkÑ81kpb ` kwq P R

`0 pB ` W q. Thus

R`0 B ` W Ď R

`0 pB ` W q really holds true. l

Remark 4.2.4. The condition that x˚ is not a minimizer of Ψ is essential to have equalityin (4.4) as the following example illustrates. The function Ψ given by Ψpxq “ x2 is minimalat x˚ “ 0 P intpdomΨq. We have S – levΨp0qΨ “ t0u so that

R`0 BΨpx˚q “ t0u Ă R “ BιSpx˚q.

83


Remark 4.2.5. i) The condition x˚ P domΨ is not sufficient to get equality in (4.4).Consider the proper, convex, lower semicontinuous function Ψ given by

Ψpxq –

"´?

x if x ě 0,

`8 if x ă 0.

The point x˚ “ 0 is not a minimizer of Ψ and belongs to domΨ but not to ripdomΨq.Using S – levΨp0qΨ “ R

`0 we see that

R`0 BΨpx˚q “ H Ă p´8, 0s “ BιSpx˚q.

ii) Even the condition x˚ P ripdomΨq is not sufficient to guarantee equality in (4.4), ifaffpdomΨq is not the full space R

n: Consider the proper, convex and lower semicontinuousfunction Ψ : R2 Ñ R Y t`8u, given by

Ψpx1, x2q –

#x1 if x2 “ 0,

`8 if x2 “ 0.

The affine hull affpdomΨq “ R ˆ t0u is a proper subset of R2. We have S – levΨpx˚qΨ “p´8, x˚

1s ˆ t0u for arbitrarily chosen x˚ “ px˚1 , 0q P R ˆ t0u “ affpdomΨq “ ripdomΨq.

Applying Theorem B.17 to affpdomΨq — A — U yields

BιSpx˚q “ BpιS|Aqpx˚q ` UK “ R`0 p1, 0qT ` Rp0, 1qT

“ tpp1, p2qT : p1 P r0,`8q, p2 P p´8,`8qu

and BΨpx˚q “ p1, 0qT ` Rp0, 1qT “ tp1, p2qT : p2 P p´8,`8qu so that

R`0 BΨpx˚q “ tp0, 0qTu Y tpp1, p2qT : p1 P p0,`8q, p2 P p´8,`8qu.

We see that the closure R`0 BΨ is just the closed half-plane BιSpx˚q, as guaranteed by Lemma

4.2.3. However we only have R`0 BΨpx˚q Ă BιSpx˚q.

Concerning Lemma 4.2.1 we note that equation (4.3) holds true here if and only if S isnot completely contained in the straight line H“

p,αppq, where αppq – xp, x˚y: Choosing any

p “ pp1, p2q with p1 ą 0 we see that the line H“p,αppq intersects affpdomΨq only in x˚, so

that we clearly have infxPH“p,α

Ψpxq “ Ψpx˚q. However this equation is no longer fulfilled ifwe choose p in such a way that affpdomΨq Ď H“

p,α, say e.g. p “ p0, 1q.

Using Lemma 4.2.3 it is not hard to prove the following Theorem 4.2.6 on the correspon-dence between the constrained problem (P1,τ) in (1.2) and the penalized problem (P2,λ)in (1.3). The core part of the theorem has been restated in Corollary 4.2.7 for proper,convex functions Φ,Ψ : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u, where the effective domain domΨ is open andcontains domΦ. In that case the theorem basically states, on the one hand, in its secondpart the following: For λ ą 0 any x P SOLpP2,λq which does not minimize Φ, belongs also

84


to SOLpP1,τ q exactly for τ “ Ψpxq. In its first part, on the other hand, it then statessomething converse: For any x P SOLpP1,τ q which does neither minimize Φ nor Ψ, thereexists λ ą 0 such that x P SOLpP2,λq. To determine this λ we will later use duality consid-erations. In the following theorem we give the rigorous statement and take also the caseλ “ 0 into account in both parts of the theorem; note here however that the second partof the theorem does not state that for given x P SOLpP2,0q there actually is a τ P R withx P SOLpP1,τ q, cf. Remark 4.2.10. Before proving the theorem we give also one remark topart i) and one remark to part ii), noting that, on the one hand, several Lagrange Mul-tiplier values for λ can correspond to the same levelparameter τ , and that, on the otherhand, several levelparameters τ can correspond to one and the same Lagrange Multipliervalue λ.

Theorem 4.2.6. i) Let Φ,Ψ : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u be proper, convex functions. ConsiderpP1,τ q for a τ P pinf Ψ,`8q with ripdomΦq X riplevτΨq “ H and let x be a minimizer of(P1,τ ), which is situated in intpdomΨq. Then there exists a real parameter λ ě 0 suchthat x is also a minimizer of (P2,λ). This parameter λ is positive, if x is in addition not aminimizer of Φ.

ii) For proper Φ,Ψ : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u with domΦ X domΨ “ H, let x be a minimizer of(P2,λ). For λ “ 0 and τ P OP pΦ,Ψq the point x is also a minimizer of (P1,τ ) if and onlyif τ ě Ψpxq. If λ ą 0, then x is also a minimizer of (P1,τ ) for τ – Ψpxq P OP pΦ,Ψq.Moreover, if Φ,Ψ are proper, convex functions and x P intpdomΨq, this τ is unique amongall values in OP pΦ,Ψq if and only if x is not a minimizer of Φ.

This theorem implies directly the following

Corollary 4.2.7. Let Ψ be a proper and convex function with open effective domain andlet Φ be another proper and convex function with domΦ Ď domΨ. For those px P Rn whichdo neither belong to argminΦ nor to argminΨ the following holds true:

i) If px P SOLpP1,τ q for some τ P pinf Ψ,`8q then also px P SOLpP2,λq for some λ ą 0.

ii) If px P SOLpP2,λq for some λ ą 0 then there is exactly one τ P OP pΦ,Ψq such thatpx P SOLpP1,τ q, namely τ “ Ψppxq.

Before proving Theorem 4.2.6 we give the announced remarks.

Remark 4.2.8. Part i) of the theorem is not constructive. In general, there may existvarious parameters λ corresponding to the same parameter τ as the following example withm ă ´2 and τ “ 1 shows: Consider the proper and convex functions Φ,Ψ : R Ñ R givenby Ψpxq – |x| and

Φpxq –

#px´ 2q2 if x ě 1,

mpx ´ 1q ` 1 if x ă 1,

85


where m ď ´2. Note that Φ is differentiable for m “ ´2. Since argminxPR Φpxq “ t2uwe obtain c – minxPargminΦ |x| “ 2. Having a look at the graph of Φ and noting that it isstrictly monotonic decreasing on p0, cq “ p0, 2q we see that

argminxPR

tΦpxq s.t. |x| ď τu “ tτu

for all τ P p0, 2q. On the other hand, we get

argminxPR

tΦpxq ` λ|x|u “

$’’’&’’’%

t2 ´ λ2u if λ P r0, 2q,

t1u if λ P r2,´mq,r0, 1s if λ “ ´m,t0u if λ P p´m,`8q,

so that τ “ 1 corresponds to λ P r2,´ms. It is known that the set of Lagrange multipliersλ is a bounded, closed interval under certain assumptions, see [19, Corollary 29.1.5]

Remark 4.2.9. Concerning part ii) of the theorem in case that there are different mini-mizers of pP2,λq, say x1 and x2, we notice that Ψpx1q “ Ψpx2q can appear as the followingexample shows: For Φpxq – |x ´ 2| and Ψpxq – |x| and λ “ 1 we have

pP2,1q Φpxq ` Ψpxq “

$&%

´2px ´ 1q if x ă 0,

2 if x P r0, 2s,`2px ´ 1q if x ą 2,

i.e., argminxPR tΦpxq ` Ψpxqu “ r0, 2s. Hence we can choose, e.g., x1 “ 1 and x2 “ 2 andobtain Ψpx1q “ 1 ‰ 2 “ Ψpx2q.

Remark 4.2.10. As warning we finally note that part ii) of the theorem needs to becarefully read in case λ “ 0, since the assertion @τ P OP pΦ,Ψq : x P SOLpP1,τ q ôτ ě Ψpxq does not state that there actually is a real τ with x P SOLpP1,τ q. This can beconcluded if and only if x P domΨ. In our chosen “unconstrained perspective”, however,the occurrence of x R domΨ can indeed happen. Consider for example the proper, convexand lower semicontinuous functions Φ : R Ñ R, Ψ : R Ñ R Y t`8u given by

Φpxq – rx ´ p´1qs2, Ψpxq –

#´?

x if x ě 0,

`8 if x ă 0.

Clearly domΦ X domΨ “ H is fulfilled. For λ “ 0, we see that x “ ´1 is the uniqueminimizer of Φ ` 0Ψ “ Φ. Since x R domΨ we have in particular x R SOLpP1,τ q for allτ P R “ OP pΦ,Ψq.

Proof of Theorem 4.2.6. i) Let x P SOLpP1,τ q X intpdomΨq, where τ P pinf Ψ,`8q. ThenΨpxq ď τ holds true. In case Ψpxq ă τ the continuity of Ψ in intpdomΨq assures Ψpxq ă τ

in a neighborhood of x. Consequently x is a local minimizer of Φ and hence also a global

86


minimizer of this convex function. In particular x is a solution of SOLpP2,0q. In caseΨpxq “ τ , we get by Fermat’s rule, the regularity assumption, BΨpxq “ H and Lemma4.2.3 the relation

0 P B`Φ ` ιlevτΨ

˘pxq “ BΦpxq ` BιlevτΨpxq “ BΦpxq ` R

`0 BΨpxq.

This means that there exists λ ě 0 such that 0 P BΦpxq ` λBΨpxq Ď B`Φ` λΨ

˘pxq so that

by Fermat’s rule x is a minimizer of (P2,λ). If x is not a minimizer of Φ, then clearly λ ą 0.

ii) Let x P SOLpP2,λq. If λ “ 0 we have to distinguish – at least in our taken unconstrainedperspective – two cases: In case x R domΨ and any τ P OP pΦ,Ψq Ď R neither the pointx is a minimizer of pP1,τ q nor is τ ě `8 “ Ψpxq. So the claimed equivalence holds true inthis case. In case x P domΨ this equivalence holds also true for any τ P OP pΦ,Ψq : Forreal τ ă Ψpxq neither x P SOLpP1,τ q holds true nor does τ ě Ψpxq. For real τ ě Ψpxq wehave x P SOLpP2,0q “ argminΦ, so that also x P SOLpP1,τ q is fulfilled.

If λ ą 0, we have x P domΦ X domΨ and get x P SOLpP1,τ q at least for τ “ Ψpxq POP pΦ,Ψq by the following reason: if there would exist x with Φpxq ă Φpxq ă `8 andΨpxq ď τ ă `8, then we can conclude Φpxq ` λΨpxq ă Φpxq ` λΨpxq, since only finitevalues occur. This contradicts x P SOLpP2,λq. Finally, let in addition Φ,Ψ be convex andx P intpdomΨq. If x is a minimizer of Φ then τ “ Ψpxq is not the only value in OP pΦ,Ψqwith x P SOLpP1,τ q, since clearly every τ ě Ψpxq belongs all the more to OP pΦ,Ψqwhile x P SOLpP1,τ q keeps fulfilled. If x is not a minimizer of Φ then there can not existanother value τ “ Ψpxq from OP pΦ,Ψq with x P SOLpP1,τ q: For τ ą Ψpxq the conditionx P intpdomΨq would imply x P argminΦ, as we already have seen in part i) of the proof,whereas for τ ă Ψpxq the point x would not even fulfill the constraint condition.

4.2.2 Fenchel duality relation

Using duality arguments we will specify the relations between (P1,τ ) and (P2,λ) for a morespecific class of problems in Section 4.4. In particular, we want to determine λ in parti) of Theorem 4.2.6. To this end, we need the following known Fenchel duality relation,compare, e.g., [20, p. 505].

Lemma 4.2.11. Let Φ P Γ0pRnq, Ψ P Γ0pRmq, L P Rm,n and µ ą 0. Assume that the

following conditions are fulfilled.

i) ripdomΦq X ripdomΨpµL¨qq “ H,

ii) RpLq X ripdomΨpµ¨qq “ H,

iii) ripdomΦ˚p´L˚¨qq X ripdomΨ˚p ¨µ

qq “ H,

iv) Rp´L˚q X ripdomΦ˚q “ H.

87


Then, the primal problem

pP q argminxPRn

tΦpxq ` ΨpµLxqu , µ ą 0, (4.10)

has a solution if and only if the dual problem

pDq argminpPRm

Φ˚p´L˚pq ` Ψ˚

ˆp

µ

˙((4.11)

has a solution. Furthermore x P Rn and p P Rm are solutions of the primal and the dualproblem, respectively, if and only if

1

µp P BΨpµLxq and ´ L˚p P BΦpxq. (4.12)

Proof. Assumptions i) and ii) assure that we can apply [19, Theorem 23.8] and [19, The-orem 23.9]. Using these theorems, Fermat’s Rule and [19, Corollary 23.5.1] we obtain onthe one hand

SOLpP q “ H,

ô Dx P Rn such that 0 P B

`Φp¨q ` ΨpµL¨q

˘pxq “ BΦpxq ` µL˚BΨpµLxq,

ô Dx P Rn Dp P R

m such that p P µBΨpµLxq and ´ L˚p P BΦpxq,

ô Dx P Rn Dp P R

m such that µLx P BΨ˚

ˆp

µ

˙and x P BΦ˚p´L˚pq.

Due to the assumptions iii) and iv) we similarly obtain

SOLpDq “ H,

ô Dp P Rm such that 0 P B

´Φ˚p´L˚¨q ` Ψ˚

ˆ ¨µ

˙¯ppq “ ´LBΦ˚p´L˚pq ` 1

µBΨ˚

ˆp

µ

˙,

ô Dp P Rm Dx P R

n such that x P BΦ˚p´L˚pq and µLx P BΨ˚

ˆp

µ

˙,

on the other hand.

4.2.3 Notes to Theorem 4.2.6 and to some technical assumptions

In this subsection we discuss mainly Theorem 4.2.6 with respect to two aspects: In the fistpart we deal with the condition x P intpdomΨq and illustrate its importance – at least inthe “unconstrained perspective” – by two examples. The second part is dedicated to theregularity assumptions used in Theorem 4.2.6 and in [5, Theorem 2.4] and their relationto Slater’s Constraint Qualification.

88


The condition x P intpdomΨq in Theorem 4.2.6

Concerning part i) of Theorem 4.2.6 we note that the condition x P intpdomΨq is essential– at least in our chosen “unconstrained perspective”: It can not be omitted as the nextexample shows. We will also see that it can not even be replaced by the weaker conditionx P ripdomΨq.

Example 4.2.12.

i) Consider the proper, convex and lower semicontinuous functions Φ : R Ñ R, Ψ :

R Ñ R Y t`8u given by

Φpxq – rx´ p´1qs2, Ψpxq –

#´?

x if x ě 0,

`8 if x ă 0.

We have ripdomΦqXriplevτΨq “ pτ 2,`8q “ H for every τ P p´8, 0s “ pinf Ψ, supΨs.Furthermore argmintΦ s.t. Ψ ď τu “ tτ 2u — txτu does not intersect t´1u “argminΦ for all these τ . In case τ P p´8, 0q we have xτ P intpdomΨq and –as guaranteed by part i) of the previous theorem – there is indeed a λ ě 0 withxτ P argminpΦ ` λΨq i.e. with Φ1pτ 2q ` λΨ1pτ 2q “ 0, namely λ “ ´4τpτ 2 ` 1q ą 0.In case τ “ 0, however, such a real λ ě 0 does not exist: For λ “ 0 we havexτ “ 0 R t´1u “ argminpΦq “ argminpΦ ` 0Ψq – in our unconstrained perspective –and for λ P p0,`8q we have 0 R H “ BpΦ ` λΨqpxτ q so that xτ R argminpΦ ` λΨqas well.

ii) Consider the proper, convex and lower semicontinuous functions Φ : R2 Ñ R, Ψ :

R2 Ñ R Y t`8u given by

Φpx1, x2q – x21 ` px2 ´ 1q2, Ψpx1, x2q –

#x1 if x2 “ 0,

`8 if x2 “ 0.

For any τ P pinf Ψ,`8q “ R we have ripdomΦqX riplevτΨq “ R2 Xrp´8, τqˆt0us “H. Consider

xτ P argmintΦ s.t. Ψ ď τu “ argminxPp´8,τ sˆt0u

Φpxq “«argminx1Pp´8,τ s

x21 ` 1

ffˆ t0u

“#

tpτ, 0qT u for τ ă 0

tp0, 0qTu for τ ě 0.

In case τ ă 0 there is even a λ P p0,`8q with

pτ, 0qT “ xτ P argmintΦ ` λΨu λ“0“„argminx1PR

px21 ` λx1q

ˆ t0u “ tp´λ2, 0qTu,

89


namely λ “ ´2τ ą 0. In case τ ě 0, however, there is no λ ě 0 with p0, 0qT “ xτ PargminpΦ ` λΨq: On the one hand any λ ą 0 can not do the job, since argminpΦ `λΨq “ tp´λ

2, 0qTu S p0, 0qT for all λ P p0,`8q. On the other hand also λ “ 0 can

not do the job, since argminpΦ ` 0Ψq “ argminΦ “ tp0, 1qTu S p0, 0qT .

Regularity assumptions and the related Slater Condition

In part i) of Theorem 4.2.6 the condition

ripdomΦq X riplevτΨq “ H,

from [19, Theorem 23.8] was used as regularity assumption to ensure a certain amount ofoverlapping between the sets domΦ and levτΨ. In [5] we used a different condition which,however, implies our used condition; that condition was:

“Assume that there exists a point in domΦ X levτΨ

where one of the functions Φ or ιlevτΨ is continuous.”1

Another related regularity assumptions is Slater’s Constraint Qualification

Dx0 P domΦ : Ψpx0q ă τ.

We will shortly discuss the relation between this Slater Condition and the first conditionfor functions Ψ which additionally have an open effective domain domΨ. This additionalassumption has the following effect on part i) of Theorem 4.2.6: All minimizers of (P1,τ ) arenow automatically situated in intpdomΨq and for real τ ą inf Ψ the regularity conditionripdomΦq X riplevτΨq “ H is equivalent to Slater’s Constraint Qualification, by the subse-quent lemma. In this case, the existence of a Lagrange multiplier λ ě 0 is also assured by[19, Corollary 28.2.1]2 if we note [19, Theorem 28.1].

Dropping this additional assumption again and returning to our general setting in Theo-rem 4.2.6 we note that it still might be possible to replace the first regularity assumptionby this Slater Condition; however the latter does in general no longer imply the first reg-ularity assumption: The condition Ψpx0q ă τ in itself does not ensure x0 P riplevτΨq asFig. 4.2 shows. Imaging that we choose Φ now in a way such that domΦ is a closedtriangle which has x0 as one of its vertices and that domΦ intersects the sketched domΨ

only in x0. In particular domΦ X levτΨ “ tx0u so that Slater’s Condition is fulfilledhere, but our first regularity condition ripdomΦq X riplevτΨq “ H does not hold, since

1 We took that condition from the book of Ekeland – Témam, cf. [13, Proposition 5.6 on p. 26] withcaution in case F1 “ `8 and F2 “ ´8.

2 after resetting Φ to `8 outside of domΨ in order to achieve domΦ Ď domΨ as demanded byRockafellar on p. 273; his other demand ripdomΦq Ď ripdomΨ) is then automatically fulfilled since domΨ

is open here.

90

4.3 Assisting theory with examples

x0 R riplevτΨq here. However, in situations where x0 P intpdomΨq holds true in addition,we have x0 P intpdomΨq X levăτΨ “ riplevτΨq, by Theorem B.9 and we could state theTheorem 4.2.6 also with the extended slater condition

Dx0 P domΦ : x0 P intpdomΨq and Ψpx0q ă τ

by the following Lemma:

Lemma 4.2.13. Let Φ,Ψ : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u be proper and convex functions and letintpdomΨq “ H. Then, for any τ P R, the following statements are equivalent:

i) τ ą inf Ψ and ripdomΦq X riplevτΨq “ Hii) τ ą inf Ψ and there exists an x1 P domΦ X levτΨ where Φ or ιlevτΨ is continuous.

iii) There is an x0 P domΦ with x0 P intpdomΨq and Ψpx0q ă τ .

iv) τ ą inf Ψ and domΦ X intplevτΨq “ H.

Proof. iv) ñ iii) : Let x0 P domΦX intplevτΨq. Then x0 P domΦ holds banally true. Dueto intpdomΨq “ H we know that domΨ has full dimension n, so that Theorem B.9 yieldsx0 P intplevτΨq “ riplevτΨq “ ripdomΨq X levăτΨ “ intpdomΨq X levăτΨ. iii) ñ ii) : Letthere exist x0 P domΦ X intpdomΨq with Ψpx0q ă τ. This assures directly τ ą inf Ψ. Tosee the continuity of ιlevτΨ in x0 — x1, note that the convex function Ψ is continuous inx0 P intpdomΨq, assuring Ψpxq ă τ in a whole neighborhood of x0. ii) ñ i) : Let Φ or ιlevτΨbe continuous in a point x1 P domΦ X levτΨ. Then at least one of the nonempty, convexsets A “ domΦ or B “ levτΨ “ dom ιlevτΨ contains that common point in its interior;say x1 P intpAq without loss of generality. Choosing any point y1 P ripBq, as permitted byTheorem B.8, we have

zλ – p1 ´ λqy1 ` λx1 P ripBqfor all λ P r0, 1q, due to Theorem B.7. So we achieve zλ P ripBq X intpAq by choosingλ P r0, 1q close enough to 1. In particular ripAq X ripBq “ H holds true. i) ñ iv): Letx0 P ripdomΦq X riplevτΨq, where τ ą inf Ψ. Then x0 P domΦ holds banally true. UsingTheorem B.9 we also obtain x0 P riplevτΨq “ intplevτΨq, again due to the fact that levτΨ

has the same full dimension n as domΨ.


This section provides tools which allow to transfer and refine the general relation betweenSOLpP1,τ q and SOLpP2,λq, as stated in Theorem 4.2.6 resp. Corollary 4.2.7, to the morespecial setting in Section 4.4 with homogeneous penalizers and constraints, resulting in ourmain Theorem 4.4.6 of the last Section 4.4.

Among this current section’s subsections

91


Figure 4.2: Example where Ψpx0q ă τ does not imply x0 P riplevτΨq.

‚ 4.3.1 Convex functions and their periods space

‚ 4.3.2 Operations that preserve essentially smoothness

‚ 4.3.3 Operations that preserve decomposability into a innerly strictly convex and aconstant part

‚ 4.3.4 Existence and direction of argminpF ` Gq for certain classes of functions

the last one is the most important one for that transferring; roughly speaking its Theorem4.3.21 ensures, for given λ ą 0, that the value τ “ Ψppxq “ }Lpx} is independent from thechoice of px P SOLpP2,λq, if Φ is additionally essentially smooth and (essentially) strictly

convex on some affine subset qA of affpdomΦq. Demanding such essentially smoothness and(essentially) strictness properties on Φ is done in the setting of the next section, so thatwe can apply directly Theorem 4.3.21 for the primal problems in Subsection 4.4.1.

For the corresponding dual problems we likewise, for given τ , would like the value λ “}pp}˚ to be independent from the choice of pp P SOLpD1,τ q. However we can not directlyapply Theorem 4.3.21 for the dual problems since here the more complicated, concatenatedfunction p ÞÑ Φ˚p´L˚pq — rΦppq needs to be considered. In Section 4.4 we will see that Φ˚

has similar essentially smoothness and strictness properties as Φ. So the question remains ifconcatenation with a (not necessarily invertible) linear mapping preserve these properties.Luckily this is the case if certain conditions hold true, see Theorem 4.3.12 and Theorem4.3.16 in the second and third subsection, respectively.

For the proof of that helpful Theorem 4.3.16 or rather its Lemma 4.3.15 we will use The-orems and Lemmata developed in Subsection 4.3.1.

4.3.1 Convex functions and their periods space

In this subsection we define and deal with the periods space of a convex functions. Thenotion of periods space is closely related to semidirect sums discussed in the previouschapter: For a convex funtion F : Rn Ñ RYt`8u and any decomposition Rn “ X1‘X2 of

92


its domain of definition into some subspace X2 Ď P rF s and some complementary subspaceX1 we can write F in the form F “ F1 Z 0X2

with F1 “ F |X1. In subsection 4.3.3 it will

be convenient to allow X1 to be also an affine subset of Rn. To this end we extend thedefinition of semidirect sums from Section 3.3 as follows:

Definition 4.3.1. Let a nonempty subset X Ď Rn have a direct decompositionX “ X1‘X2

into subsets X1, X2 Ď Rn. The semi-direct sum of functions F1 : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u,F2 : X2 Ñ R Y t`8u is the function F1 ZF2, given by

pF1 ZF2qpx1 ` x2q – F1px1q ` F2px2q

The next theorem shows that the periods of a convex function form a vector space. Thisspace is equal to the constancy space, defined by Rockafellar, see [19, p. 69].

Theorem 4.3.2 (and Definition). Let X be a nonempty affine subset of Rn with under-lying difference space U Ď Rn and let F : X Ñ R Y t`8u be a convex function. Theset

P rF s – tp P U : F px` pq “ F pxq for all x P Xu“ tp P U : F px` pq “ F pxq for all x P affpdomF qu

of all periods of F then forms a vector subspace of U . We will call it periods space of F .

Proof. The sets are equal; note herein that in case x R affpdomF q the equation F px`pq “F pxq is anyway fulfilled for all p P U , since then neither x nor x`p belong to affpdomF q, sothat F pxq “ `8 “ F px`pq. Next we prove that P rF s is a subspace of U by the SubspaceCriterion. Clearly 0 P P rF s. Furthermore P rF s is closed under addition: Let p1, p P P rF sbe arbitrarily chosen. Then F px1 `p1 `pq “ F px1 `p1q “ F px1q for all x1 P X and thereforep1 ` p P P rF s. Finally P rF s is closed under scalar multiplication: Let p P P rF s and x P Xbe arbitrarily chosen. We have to show that F px` λpq “ F pxq for all λ P R, i.e. that thefunction f : R Ñ R Y t`8u, given by fpλq – F px` λpq is constant. In case f ” `8 thisis clearly true. In case f ı `8 we choose any λ0 P dom f . Since p is a period of F allvalues fpλ0 ` kq, where k P Z, equal fpλ0q ă `8. In particular we have λ0 ` k P dom f

for k P Z. Part ii) of Lemma B.1, applied to an “ λ0 ´ n, bn “ λ0 and cn “ λ0 ` n, wheren P N, now just says that the convex function f is constant on all Intervals rλ0 ´n, λ0 `ns,where n P N, and hence on whole R.

Lemma 4.3.3. Let X be a nonempty affine subset of Rn and let E : X Ñ R Y t`8u be aproper and convex function. For any decomposition affpdomEq “ A‘P of affpdomEq — A

into some affine set A Ď Rn and some subspace P of the periods space P rEs the following

holds true:

affpdomE|Aq “ A, domE “ domE|A ‘ P (4.13)

intApdomE|Aq “ ripdomE|Aq, intApdomEq “ intApdomE|Aq ‘ P (4.14)

Moreover all the sets in these equations are nonempty.

93


Proof. Since E is proper we have H “ affpdomEq “ A‘ P so that A “ H and P “ H aswell. The inclusion domE|A‘P Ď domE holds true since Epa`pq “ Epaq “ E|Apaq ă `8for all a P domE|A and all p P P Ď P rEs. The reverse inclusion domE Ď domE|A ‘ P

holds also true, since every x P domE Ď affpdomEq “ A ‘ P can be written in the formx “ a` p with some p P P and a P affpdomE|Aq, where we even have a P domE|A, becauseE|Apaq “ Epa ` pq “ Epxq ă `8. Altogether we have

domE “ domE|A ‘ P,

where E ı `8 guarantees domE “ H, so that domE|A is nonempty, as well. Due tothe banal domE|A Ď A we get the inclusion affpdomE|Aq Ď affpAq “ A, where actuallyequality holds true, since (a slightly transposed) equation (B.11) in Theorem B.15 giveson the one hand

affpdomE|Aq ‘ P “ affpdomE|A ‘ P q “ affpdomEq “ A‘ P

– whereas the assumption affpdomE|Aq Ă A would, on the other hand, result in the strictsubset relation affpdomE|Aq ‘ P Ă A‘ P , due to P “ H. The therewith proven

affpdomE|Aq “ A

gives now directlyintApdomE|Aq “ ripdomE|Aq,

where these sets are nonempty by Theorem B.8 Using the latter equation and equation(B.8) from Theorem B.15 we finally obtain

intApdomEq “ ripdomEq “ ripdomE|A ‘ P q “ ripdomE|Aq ‘ P “ intApdomE|Aq ‘ P,

where intApdomEq “ H ensures that also intApdomE|Aq is non empty.

Theorem 4.3.4. Let F : Rn Ñ RYt`8u be a convex function, P a subspace of the periodsspace P rF s and A, A Ď Rn affine sets with A‘P “ A‘P . Then F – F |A : A Ñ RYt`8uand F – F |A : A Ñ R Y t`8u are the same mapping, except for an affine transformationbetween their domain of definition: There is a bijective affine mapping α : A Ñ A withF “ F ˝ α, namely the mapping given by αpaq “ αpa` pq – a.

Proof. Due to A‘P “ A‘P every a P A can be written in the form a “ a`0 “ apaq`ppaqwith uniquely determined apaq P A and ppaq P P . Setting αpaq – apaq gives hence a welldefined mapping α : A Ñ A. Geometrically speaking each a P A is projected parallel to Pto a point a “ αpaq P A. This mapping is bijective, since it is both injective and surjective:Let αpa1q “ αpa2q for a1, a2 P A. Then a1 ´ a2 “ pαpa1q ` ppa1qq ´ pαpa2q ` ppa2qq “0 ` ppa1q ´ ppa2q — p P P , so that a2 ` p “ a1 ` 0. The directness of the sum A ‘ P

gives thus p “ 0, i.e. a2 “ a1. This shows that α is injective. In order to prove thesurjectivity of α let a P A be given. Thanks to A‘ P “ A‘ P we can write a in the form

94


a “ a ` 0 “ a˚ ` p˚ with some a˚ P A and p˚ P P . Rearranging the latter to a˚ “ a ´ p˚

gives a “ αpa˚q. It remains to show that α : A Ñ A is affine. To this end let t P R andwrite arbitrarily chosen a1, a2 P A in the form

a1 “ a1 ` p1, a2 “ a2 ` p2

with a1, a2 P A and p1, p2 P P . Then their affine combination

a1 ` tpa2 ´ a1q “ a1 ` tpa2 ´ a1q ` p1 ` tpp2 ´ p2q

is of the same form with a1`tpa2´a1q P A and p1`tpp2´p2q P P , so that αpa1`tpa2´a1qq “a1 ` tpa2 ´ a1q “ αpa1q ` tpαpa2q ´ αpa1qq really holds true.

Remark 4.3.5. Let F : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u be a convex function. Every p P P rF s fulfillsdomF ` p “ domF .

The previous remark gave a necessary condition for p P P rF s. The following lemma givesa sufficient condition. It says that, in case of a proper, lower semicontinuous and convexfunction, we do not have to check the condition F px ` pq “ F pxq for all x P Rn inorder to prove p P P rF s: It already suffices to find only one single a P domF such thatF px`pq “ F pxq for all x P a` spanppq. We note that it is even sufficient to find one singlea P domF such that F is bounded above on the line a ` spanppq by some real α; this isensured by [19, Corollary 8.6.1], which contains the next lemma as special case.

Lemma 4.3.6. Assume that a function F : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u from Γ0pRnq is constant ona line or point a ` spanppq Ď Rn which intersects domF . Then p P P rF s.

Proof. In case p “ 0 the assertion is clearly fulfilled. In the main case p “ 0 we have toshow that F is constant on every straight line x ` spanppq parallel, but not identical toa ` spanppq. In case of F ” `8 we are done. In the remaining case F |x`spanppq ı `8we consider F on the affine plane spanned by the non-identical, parallel straight linesx ` spanppq and a ` spanppq, or rather only on the closed strip

Sx – coprx` spanppqs Y ra` spanppqsq

bounded by these lines. We perform our task in two steps: Firstly we will show that F isconstant on every straight line y ` spanppq in ripSxq “ Sxzprx` spanppqs Y ra` spanppqsq.Secondly we carry this knowledge over to the bounding line x` spanppq of Sx. The wholestraight line a` spanppq belongs to dompF q as well as at least one point x1 P x` spanppq,since F |x`spanppq ı `8. Using the convexity of domF we hence obtain

domF “ copdomF q Ě coptx1u Y ra` spanppqsq Ě ripSxq,

i.e. F takes only finite values on every straight line y ` spanppq Ď ripSxq. Assume that Fis not constant on some line y ` spanppq Ď ripSxq, i.e. that there were parameters t, t P R

95


with F py ` tpq ă F py ` tpq. Defining the function Fy,p : R Ñ R via Fy,pptq – F py ` tpqthis reads Fy,pptq ă Fy,pptq. Since Fy,p is convex the equation (B.2) from Lemma B.1 wouldyield

F py ` rp1 ´ λqt` λtspq “ Fy,ppp1 ´ λqt ` λtq ě Fy,pptq ` λpFy,pptq ´ Fy,pptqq Ñ `8

as λ Ñ `8. In particular there would exist t1, t2 P R such that

F py ` t2ploomoon—y2

q ą F py ` t1ploomoon—y1

q ě F paq “ F pa` tpq

for all t P R. So levF py1qpF q would contain not only the point y1 but also the straight linea` spanppq. The convexity of levF py1qpF q would therefore give

levF py1qpF q “ coplevF py1qpF qq Ě copty1u Y ra` spanppqsq Ě ripSy1q “ ripSyq

with the nonempty closed strip Sy “ copry ` spanppqs Y ra ` spanppqsq. The lower-semicontinuity of F ensures the closeness of levF py1qpF q so that

levF py1qpF q “ plevF py1qpF qq Ě ripSyq Ě y ` spanppq Q y2,

yielding F py2q ď F py1q which contradicts F py2q ą F py1q. So F is constant on everystraight line y ` spanppq in ripSxq, i.e. F py ` tpq “ F pyq for all t P R. Applying TheoremB.4 to a P domF and an arbitrarily chosen x˚ “ x ` t˚p P x ` spanppq we see that

F px˚q “ limµÒ1

F pp1 ´ µqa` µx˚q “ limµÒ1

F pp1 ´ µqa` µxlooooooomooooooon—yµ

` µtloomoon—tµ

pq.

The point yµ belongs to the relatively open strip ripSxq for all µ P p0, 1q, so that F isconstant on the straight line yµ ` spanppq. Therewith and by Theorem B.4 we obtain

F pyµ ` tµpq “ F pyµq “ F pp1 ´ µqa` µxq Ñ F pxq

as µ Ò 1. Altogether we have F px˚q “ F pxq for all point x˚ P x` spanppq.

Remark 4.3.7. Demanding that F is lower semicontinuous is important to ensure p PP rF s as the following example shows: Consider the function F : R2 Ñ RY t`8u given by

F px1, x2q –

$’&’%

`8 for x1 ă 0

x22 for x1 “ 0

0 for x1 ą 0

.

and regard e.g. a “ p3, 0q and p “ p0, 4q. Then all assumptions are fulfilled, except forthe lower semicontinuity of F . Moreover the closed right half plane domF clearly fulfillsdomF “ domF ` p; however p R P rF s since F p0 ` pq “ F p0q.

96


Theorem 4.3.8. Let E : X Ñ RY t`8u be a convex function, defined on an affine subsetX of Rn. For any affine subset A Ď X and its difference space U we have

P rEs X U Ď P rE|As.

We actually have P rEs X U “ P rE|As, if in addition E P Γ0rXs and A X domE “ H.

Before proving this theorem we show by two examples that both the lower semicontinuityof E and the condition AXdomE “ H are essential to get the equality P rEsXU “ P rE|As.

Example 4.3.9.

i) Consider the function E : R3 Ñ R Y t`8u given by

Epx1, x2, x3q –

$’&’%

x3 if x3 ą 0,

0 if x3 “ 0 and x2 “ 0,

`8 else .

E is obtained from the mapping R3 Ñ R, x ÞÑ x3 by restricting its effective domainto the non-closed set domE “ Hą

e3,0Y xe1y. The proper and convex function E is not

lower semicontinuous, so that E R Γ0pR3q. Both the x1x2 plane spante1, e2u — A andits translate A0 ` e3 — A1 are affine subsets of R3 that intersect domE. Althoughthey have the same difference space U “ A the periods spaces P rE|As and P rE|A1sare different; more precisely

P rE|As “ P rEs X U Ă P rE|A1s

holds true: Clearly P rEs X U “ spanpe1q X A “ spanpe1q “ P rE|As. HoweverP rEs X U “ spanpe1q Ă spanpe1, e2q “ P rE|A1s.

ii) Consider the function E : R3 Ñ R Y t`8u given by

Epx1, x2, x3q –

#x3 if x3 ď 0 and x2 “ 0,

`8 else .

E is obtained from the mapping R3 Ñ R, x ÞÑ x3 by "restricting" it to the closedhalf-plane domE “ tpx1, 0, x3q P R

3 : x1 P R, x3 ď 0u. Defining A,A1 and U as abovewe have A X domE “ spanpe1q “ H but A1 X domE “ H. Clearly P rEs X U “spanpe1q “ P rE|As. However P rEs X U “ spanpe1q Ă spanpe1, e2q “ U “ P rE|A1s,since E|A1 ” `8.

Proof of Theorem 4.3.10. Let p P P rEs X U . Then

Epx ` pq “ Epxq

97


for all x P X. For all x P A we have x ` p P A and hence

E|Apx ` pq “ Epx ` pq “ Epxq “ E|Apxq,

for all x P A Ď X. This shows P rEs X U Ď P rE|As. Let now the additional assumptionsbe fulfilled and let p P P rE|As. Then p P U . Since E|A ı `8, and Epx ` pq “ Epxq forall x P A we see by part ii) of Lemma B.1 that E is in particular constant on any linea ` spanppq, a P A which intersects the nonempty set domE|A. Lemma 4.3.6 gives thusp P P rEs so that p P P rEs X U . This shows that also the reversed inclusion P rE|As ĎP rEs X U holds true under the additional assumptions.

4.3.2 Operations that preserve essentially smoothness

Roughly speaking essential smoothness is preserved when performing the following oper-ations on an essentially smooth function H : A Ñ R Y t`8u, defined on some affinesubspace A of Rn:

‚ Restrictions H | qA to an affine subspace qA of A which intersects ripdomHq

‚ Extensions F of H of the form F “ H Z 0 qP

‚ Forming concatenations F “ H ˝ M with a linear mapping whose range intersectsripdomHq,

see Lemma 4.3.10, Lemma 4.3.11 and Theorem 4.3.12.

Lemma 4.3.10. Let A be an affine subspace of Rn and F : A Ñ R Y t`8u be essentiallysmooth. The restriction F |A of F to an affine set A Ď A stays essentially smooth, if Aintersects ripdomF qr“ intApdomF qs.

The condition A X ripdomF q “ H is essential to preserve the essential smoothness whenrestricting F to A. Cf. example 4.3.13.

Proof of Lemma 4.3.10. By definition of “essentially smooth”, cf. [19, p. 251] and nearbyexplanations, see [19, Lemma 26.2] and cf. [19, p. 213] we have

aq intApdomF q “ H,

bq F is differentiable in every x P intApdomF q “ ripdomF q and

cq the directional derivative F 1px ` λpa ´ xq; a ´ xq Ñ ´8 as λ Œ 0 for every x PBApdomF q “ rbpdomF q and every a P intApdomF q “ ripdomF q

98


Set F – F |A. Then dom F “ A X domF , so that equation (B.7) in Theorem B.10 givesaffpdom F q “ A X affpdomF q “ A X A “ A, ensuring intApdom F q “ ripdom F q and thusBApdom F q “ rbpdom F q. Equation (B.4) of the same theorem gives

aq intApdom F q “ ripdom F q “ ripAX domF q “ AX ripdomF q “ H.

Due to intApdom F q “ AX ripdomF q Ď ripdomF q “ intApdomF q we know that

bq F “ F |A is differentiable in every x P intApdom F q.

Since equation (B.6) from Theorem B.10 ensures BApdom F q “ rbpdom F q “ rbpA XdomF q “ AX rbpdomF q Ď rbpdomF q “ BApdomF q we finally – still – have

cq F 1px ` λpa ´ xq; a ´ xq “ F 1px ` λpa ´ xq; a ´ xq Ñ ´8 as λ Œ 0 for everyx P BApdom F q Ď BApdomF q and every a P intApdom F q Ď intApdomF q.

Therefore F |A “ F is essentially smooth.

Lemma 4.3.11. Let F : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u be a convex function and let affpdomF q bedecomposed as direct sum affpdomF q “ A‘ P of some affine subspace A of Rn and somevector subspace P of the periods space P rF s. Then the following are equivalent:

i) F is essentially smooth on A‘ P “ affpdomF q.

ii) F is essentially smooth on A.

Proof. Assume without loss of generality that A is placed in a way that it even is a vectorsubspace of Rn and set A – A‘ P “ affpdomF q “ spanpdomF q, f – F |A and f – F |A.We are going to show the following:

intApdom fq “ H ô intApdom fq “ H, (4.15)

f is differentiable in every a P intApdom fqõ (4.16)

f is differentiable in every a P intApdom fq.

In case that f and f are differentiable in intApdom fq and in intApdom fq, respectively, wewill finally show

}Df |ak}AÑR Ñ `8 for all pakqk P BSpdom fqõ (4.17)

}Df |ak}AÑR Ñ `8 for all pakqk P BSpdom fq

99


where BSpdom fq consists of those convergent sequences in intApdom fq whose limit pointbelongs to the relative boundary BApdom fq. BSpdom fq is defined accordingly.Note first that dom f “ dom f ‘ P gives by Theorem B.15 the equality A ‘ P “ A “affpdom fq “ affpdom fq ‘ P . Using A Ě affpdom fq we hence get A “ affpdom fq. By thevery same theorem we obtain analogously BApdom fq “ rbpdom f ‘ P q “ rbpdom fq ‘ P “BApdom fq ‘ P and intApdom fq “ ripdom f ‘ P q “ ripdom fq ‘ P “ intApdom fq ‘ P . Thelatter equality already shows that (4.15) is true. In order to prove (4.16) we will make useof unique decompositions a “ a ` p and h “ h ` q of a, h P A into a, h P A and p, q P P .Assume first the differentiability of f in an arbitrarily chosen a P intApdom fq; i.e. thatthere exists a (unique) linear mapping Df |a : A Ñ R and a function ra : A Ñ R, which isboth continuous in 0 and fulfills rap0q “ 0, such that

fpa` hq “ fpaq ` Df |aphq ` raphq}h}

for all sufficiently small h P A. For any a P intApdom fq we have a “ a`0 P intApdom fq ‘P “ intApdom fq. So the latter formula stays valid for a “ a and all sufficiently smallh “ h P A Ď A. Therefore f “ f |A is also differentiable with Df |aphq “ Dfaphq forall h P A. Assume now to the contrary the differentiability of f in an arbitrarily chosena P intApdom fq; i.e. that there is a (unique) linear mapping Df |a : A Ñ R and a functionra : A Ñ R, which is both continuous in 0 and fulfills rap0q “ 0, such that

fpa` hq “ fpaq ` Df |aphq ` raphq}h}

for all sufficiently small h P A. Any a P intApdom fq “ intApdom fq ‘ P can be writtenuniquely as a “ a` p with a P intApdom fq. For h “ 0 the translational symmetry of f indirections of P therefore gives

fpa` hq “ fpa` hq“ fpaq ` Df |aphq ` raphq}h}

“ fpaq ` Df |aphqlooomooon—Laph`qq“Laphq

` raphq}h}}h}looomooon

—raph`qq“raphq

}h}.

Clearly La : A Ñ R is a linear mapping; so we need only to show that extending ra :

Azt0u Ñ R via rap0q – 0 yields a function A Ñ R which is continuous in 0. Lemma

A.2 says that there is a constant C ą 0 such that }h}}h}

“ }h}

}h`q}ď C. Consequently

|raphq| “ |raph ` qq| ď C|raphq| Ñ 0 as h Ñ 0 (i.e. as the components h, q Ñ 0). Thus fis differentiable in a and

Df |aphq “ Laph ` qq “ Df |aphq.

We finally proof that (4.17) holds true (under the there stated differentiability assumption).For these purpose we will use the found relation between the derivatives of f and f . For

100


any a “ a ` p P intApdom fq ‘ P “ intApdom fq we have |Df |aphq| “ |Df |aphq| for allh P A with }h} “ 1. In particular }Df |a}AÑR

ď }Df |a}AÑR on the one hand. Using againthe inequality }h} ď C}h ` p} “ C}h} from Lemma A.2 we get |Df |aphq| “ |Df |aphq| ď}Df |a}AÑR}h} ď C}Df |a}AÑR}h} for all h P A, so that }Df |a}AÑR ď C}Df |a}AÑR on theother hand. Noting that the constant C does not depend on the choice of a we have intotal

}Df |a}AÑR ď }Df |a}AÑR ď C}Df |a}AÑR

for all a “ a ` p P A. Therefrom and by using BApdom fq “ BApdom fq ‘ P andintApdom fq “ intApdom fq ‘ P we finally obtain (4.17).

Theorem 4.3.12. Let the convex function E : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u be essentially smoothon affpdomEq and let M : Rm Ñ R

n be a linear mapping whose range RpMq intersectsripdomEq. Then the concatenation F – E˝M : Rm Ñ RYt`8u is convex and essentiallysmooth on affpdomF q.

Proof. The linearity of M transfers the convexity of E to F . Consider the restrictedfunctions E – E|RpMq and F – F |RpM˚q. Since RpMq X ripdomEq “ H we can applyLemma 4.3.10 to see that E is essentially smooth on

AE – RpMq X affpdomEq “ affpRpMq X domEq “ affpdom Eq,

where RpMq X affpdomEq “ affpRpMq X domEq holds true by Theorem B.10. Theequation

F “ E ˝ M,

where M – M |RpM˚q, elucidates that F and E are the very same mapping – except for thebijective linear transformation M : RpM˚q Ñ RpMq between their domains of definition.Hence F is likewise essentially smooth on

M´1rAEs “ M´1raffpdom Eqs “ affpM´1rdom Esq “ affpdom F q — AF .

Applying Lemma 4.3.11 to F , AF – affpdom F q “ RpM˚q X affpdomF q and P – N pMqwe finally see that F is essentially smooth on affpdomF q “ affpdom F q ‘ N pMq, sinceF |A “ F is essentially smooth on affpdom F q; note here that the validity of affpdomF q “affpdom F ‘ N pMqq “ affpdom F q ‘ N pMq is guaranteed by Theorem B.15.

We give two related examples to illustrate the role of the assumption RpMq X ripdomEq “H. Although we start with an example where this assumption is not fulfilled but whereE ˝M is never the less again essentially smooth, we will see in the second example that wein general can not replace that assumption by the weaker assumption RpMqXdomE “ H.We use the notations H andQ for the open upper half plane tw P R2 : w2 ą 0u Ď R2 “ C

and the first open quadrant tz P R2 : z1 ą 0, z2 ą 0u Ď C, respectively.

101


00.5

11.5

22.5

3

0

1

2

3

−3

−2.5

−2

−1.5

−1

−0.5

0

00.5

11.5

22.5

3

0

1

2

3

−3

−2.5

−2

−1.5

−1

−0.5

0

Figure 4.3: Graphs and contour lines of Eα or rather gα. Left for α “ 1

4P p0, 1

2q and right for the border

case α “ 1

2, where }∇gαpzpkqq}2 Ñ `8 for all boundary points z “ limkÑ`8 zpkq of domE 1

2

, except the

origin p0, 0q. For better quality of the plot a smaller step size was used near the X-axis and the Y-axis,where the norm of the gradient of gα is large.

Example 4.3.13. Consider first the function gα : H Ñ R Y t`8u on the closed upperhalf plane H, defined by gαpwq – ´wα2 “ ´pℑpwqqα, with some parameter α P p0,`8q.Continuing gα by setting

Eαpwq –

#gαpwq “ ´wα2 for w P H

`8 for w P R2zH

we obtain a function Eα : R2 Ñ R Y t`8u, which is convex and essentially smooth forα P p0, 1q. Concatenation with the linear projection M : R2 Ñ R ˆ t0u, Mpzq – pz1, 0qyields the mapping Fα “ Eα ˝ M ; here Fαpzq “ 0 for all z P R2 elucidates that Fα is bothconvex and essentially smooth, although RpMq does not intersect H “ ripdom Eαq.The essentially smoothness will, however, be no longer preserved by concatenation with Mif we transform gα’s domain of definition, i.e. the upper closed half plane H Ď R2 “ C,to the first closed quadrant Q by means of the bijective mapping h : Q Ñ H, given byhpzq – 1

2z2 “ p1

2pz21 ´ z22q, z1z2q: The function gα – gα ˝ h : Q Ñ H, where gαpzq “

´pz1z2qα “ ´zα1 zα2 and α P p0,`8q, is infinitely differentiable in Q and continuous in Q.Its Hessian

Hα|z “ αzα´21 zα´2

2

ˆp1 ´ αqz22 ´αz1z2´αz1z2 p1 ´ αqz21

˙

is positive definite for all z P Q, if α P p0, 12q by virtue of Sylvester’s criterion. Therefore

the continuous function gα is strictly convex in Q and convex in Q for α P p0, 12q. For

these α we furthermore have }∇gαpzpkqq}2 Ñ `8 as k Ñ `8 for any sequence pzpkqqkPN

in Q, converging to some boundary point zp8q of Q, see Detail 17. Altogether we see thatcontinuing gα by setting

Eαpzq –

#gαpzq “ ´zα1 zα2 if z P Q`8 if z P R2zQ

102


leads to a function Eα : R2 Ñ R Y t`8u which is convex and essentially smooth forα P p0, 1

2q. However Fα “ Eα ˝ M “ ιr0,`8qˆR is not essentially smooth; here RpMq

indeed intersects only domEα but not the relative interior of this effective domain, whichis consistent with Theorem 4.3.12.

4.3.3 Operations that preserve decomposability into a innerly

strictly convex and a constant part

Before giving an overview over the current subsection we need to introduce a manner ofspeaking, in which we use the extension of semidirect sums F1 ZF2 from Definition 4.3.1.

Definition 4.3.14. Let X1 be a nonempty affine subset of Rn. We call a function E1 :

X1 Ñ R Y t`8u innerly stricly convex iff E1 is strictly convex in ripdomE1q “intaffpdomE1qpdomE1q. Any semi-direct sum E “ E1 ZE2 : X Ñ R Y t`8u of an innerlystrictly convex function E1 : X1 Ñ RYt`8u and some constant function E2 : X2 Ñ R, de-fined on some vector subspace X2 will also be called decomposition of E into an innerlystrictly convex part E1 and a constant part E2.

Roughly speaking we show in this subsection that the following operations on a properconvex and lower semicontinuous function E : X Ñ R Y t`8u yield a new function whichstill has a decomposition into an innerly strictly convex part and a constant part:

‚ Restrictions E|B to an affine subspace B Ď A — affpdomEq which intersects ripdomEq,

‚ Forming concatenations F “ E ˝ M with a linear mapping whose range intersectsripdomEq,

see Lemma 4.3.15 and Theorem 4.3.16, respectively.

Lemma 4.3.15. Let E : X Ñ R Y t`8u be a proper, convex and lower semicontinuousfunction on some nonempty affine subset X Ď Rn and let there exist a decompositionaffpdomEq “ A‘ P of affpdomEq — A into a subspace P of P rEs and an affine subspaceA Ď Rn such that E is strictly convex on intApdomE|Aq. Then

i) In fact we even have P “ P rEs.

ii) Any affine subset B Ď A that intersects ripdomEq has a decomposition B “ B ‘ Q

into a vector subspace Q Ď P “ P rEs and some affine subspace B Ď Rn such that Eis strictly convex on intBpdomE|Bq.

Moreover intApdomE|Aq “ ripdomE|Aq and intBpdomE|Bq “ ripdomE|Bq are nonemptysets.

103


Proof. Since E is proper and convex we have A “ H and intApdomE|Aq “ ripdomE|Aq “H by Lemma 4.3.3. Due to BXripdomEq “ H the function E|B is still proper and convex;so the same Lemma gives also B “ H and intBpdomE|Bq “ ripdomE|Bq “ H.

i) Since P is a subspace of the periods space P rEs we clearly have P Ď P rEs. The reverseinclusion P rEs Ď P also holds true: Let p P P rEs and chose any a0 P intApdomE|Aq andthink of it as new origin. Since Epa0 ` pq “ Epa0q ă `8 we have a0 ` p P domE ĎaffpdomEq “ A ‘ P , so that a0 ` p “ a ` p, for some a P A and p P P . Hence a ´ a0 “p ´ p P P rEs. The affine combination a0 ` λpa ´ a0q still belongs to A for all λ P R andhence even to intApdomE|Aq for all sufficiently small chosen λ ą 0. Choose such a λ ą 0

and consider the possibly degenerated line segment copa0, a0 `λpa´a0qq Ď intApdomE|Aq.On the one hand E is strictly convex on the latter set and hence on our line segment. Onthe other hand a´ a0 P P rEs means that E is constant on this line segment. Both can betrue only if our line segment is degenerated to one single point, i.e. if a0 “ a0 ` λpa´ a0q.This gives 0 “ a´ a0 “ p ´ p, so that indeed p “ p P P .

ii) Let b0 P B X ripdomEq “ ripdomE XBq “ ripdomE|Bq, where we used Theorem B.10.Without loss of generality we may assume b0 “ 0; otherwise we could replace E by Ep¨´b0qwithout changing the truth value of the other assumptions and assertions of the lemma.By Theorem 4.3.8 and the already proven part i) we then have

Q – P rE|Bs “ P rEs X B Ď P rEs “ P.

Choose now firstly any subspace B of B with B “ B ‘ Q, then some subspace Q1 ofP rEs “ P with P “ Q‘ Q1 and finally some subspace B1 of A with

A “ B1 ‘ pB ‘ Q‘ Q1q “ B1 ‘ Bloomoon—A

‘ Q‘ Q1loomoon“P

.

By Theorem 4.3.4 we know that E – E|A and E – E|A are the very same mapping,except for a bijective affine transformation α : A Ñ A between their domains of definitions,which links these functions via E “ E ˝ α. Consequently E is strictly convex on a subsetS Ď A if and only if E is strictly convex on αrSs — S. Choosing S – intApdom Eq “intApdomE|Aq we see that E is strictly convex on αrintApdom Eqs “ intApαrdom Esq “intApdom Eq “ intApdomE|Aq. So B “ B ‘ Q would give the needed decomposition,if intBpdomE|Bq Ď intApdomE|Aq can be verified. Due to B Ď A it suffices to showintBpdomE|Bq “ ripdomEq X B and intApdomE|Aq “ ripdomEq X A. In order to provethe first equation we note that B intersects ripdomEq in b0 “ 0 so that equation (B.7) inTheorem B.10 gives affpdomE|Bq “ affpdomE X Bq “ affpdomEq X B “ B. Thereforeand by equation (B.4) in Theorem B.10 we indeed get intBpdomE|Bq “ ripdomE|Bq “ripdomEX Bq “ ripdomEq X B. Just analogously we obtain intApdomE|Aq “ ripdomEq XA.

Theorem 4.3.16. Let E : Rn Ñ RY t`8u be proper, convex as well as lower semicontin-uous and let M : Rm Ñ Rn be a linear mapping whose range RpMq intersects ripdomEq.

104


Assume further that there exists a decomposition

affpdomEq “ AE ‘ PE

of affpdomEq into a subspace PE of P rEs and an affine subspace AE Ď Rn such that E isstrictly convex on intAE

pdomE|AEq. Then the function F – E ˝ M : Rm Ñ R Y t`8u is

again proper, convex and lower semicontinuous and there exists a decomposition

affpdomF q “ AF ‘ PF

of affpdomF q into a subspace PF of P rF s and an affine subspace AF Ď Rm such that F isstrictly convex on intAF

pdomF |AFq.

Remark 4.3.17. Note that Lemma 4.3.3 implies that all sets that occur in the abovetheorem are nonempty.

Proof of Theorem 4.3.16. The mapping F “ E ˝M is surely again convex and lower semi-continuous. Due to RpMq X domE Ě RpMq X ripdomEq ‰ H it is also again proper.Since R

m “ RpM˚q ‘ N pMq and since clearly N pMq Ď P rF s we have

domF “ domF |RpM˚q ‘ N pMq.

It suffices to prove that there is a decomposition

affpdomF |RpM˚qq “ AF ‘ QF (4.18)

with a subspace QF Ď P rF |RpM˚qs and some affine subset AF Ď Rm, such that F is strictlyconvex on intAF

pdomF |AFq, since this decomposition then yields, by virtue of equation

(B.11) in Theorem B.15, the needed decomposition

affpdomF q “ affpdomF |RpM˚q ‘ N pMqq“ affpdomF |RpM˚qq ‘ N pMq“ AF ‘ QF ‘ N pMqloooooomoooooon

—PF

;

note herein that not only N pMq is a subspace of P rF s but also QF : Let q P QF ĎP rF |RpM˚qs and write every x1 P affpdomF q in the form x1 “ a1`q1`n1 with a1 P AF , q1 P QF

and n1 P N pMq Ď P rF s. Since a1 ` q1 P affpdomF |RpM˚qq we then indeed obtain

F px1 ` qq “ F pa1 ` q1 ` q ` n1q “ F pa1 ` q1 ` qq“ F pa1 ` q1q “ F pa1 ` q1 ` n1q “ F px1q

for every x1 P affpdomF q, i.e. q P P rF s. In order to prove that a decomposition as in(4.18) really exists we consider the restricted functions F – F |RpM˚q, E – E|RpMq and

105


M – M |RpM˚q. The equation F “ E ˝ M then elucidates that F and E are the very

same mapping – except for the linear homeomorphism M : RpM˚q Ñ RpMq between theirdomains of definition. Hence our task to prove that there is a decomposition as in (4.18)is equivalent to prove that there exists a decomposition

affpdomE|RpMqq “ BE ‘ QE

of affpdomE|RpMqq into a subspace QE Ď P rE|RpMqs and some affine subset BE Ď Rn suchthat E is strictly convex on intBE

pdomE|BEq. To this end we set

B – affpdomE|RpMqq “ affpRpMq X domEq “ RpMq X affpdomEq Ď affpdomEq — A,

where we have used again equation (B.7). The decomposition A “ AE ‘ PE fulfills theassumption of Lemma 4.3.15. Part ii) of this lemma gives now a decomposition

affpdomE|RpMqq “ B ‘ Q,

where B Ď Rn is an affine subset such that E is strictly convex on intBE

pdomE|BEq and

where Q Ď PE Ď P rEs. Setting BE – B and QE – Q we are done, since the demandedQ Ď P rE|RpMqs really holds true: Due to the banal b` Q Ď B‘ Q Ď affpdomE|RpMqq “ B

for any b P B Ď B we see that Q is a subspace of B’s difference space B´ b — U . Therebyand by Theorem 4.3.8 we now indeed obtain Q “ Q X U Ď P rEs X U Ď P rE|Bs.

4.3.4 Existence and direction of argminpppF ` Gqqq for certain classes

of functions

The next lemma gives a necessary criterion in order to ensure that a function of the formF `G has a minimizer. The core of the proof consists in showing that the convex functionF `G has a bounded nonempty level set, i.e. is coercive. The inequality from Lemma A.2helps in part ii)

Lemma 4.3.18. Let Rn be decomposed as direct sums Rn “ U1 ‘ U2 and Rn “ V1 ‘ V2of vector subspaces U1, U2 and V1, V2, respectively. Let F,G P Γ0pRnq be functions whichinhere the translation invariances

F pxq “ F px` u2q,Gpxq “ Gpx ` v2q

for all x P Rn, u2 P U2 and v2 P V2. Then the following holds true for levels α, β P R:

i) levαpF q X levβpGq is empty or unbounded, if U2 X V2 Ą t0u.

ii) levαpF q X levβpGq is bounded (possibly empty), if U2 X V2 “ t0u, and levαpF |U1q,

levβpG|V1q are bounded.

106


iii) F`G takes its minimum in R, if domFXdomG “ H, U2XV2 “ t0u and levαpF |U1q,

levβpG|V1q are nonempty and bounded. Moreover the set argminpF`Gq of minimizersis compact in this case.

Proof. We use the abbreviations f – F |U1and g – G|V1 .

i) Since in case of levαpF q X levβpGq “ H there is nothing to show, we assume that thereis a z1 P levαpF q X levβpGq. Choose any z2 P U2 X V2 with z2 “ 0. Due to z1 ` λz2 PlevαpF q X levβpGq for all λ P R, a whole affine line is contained in levαpF q X levβpGq. Sothe latter set is unbounded.

ii) Let U2 X V2 “ t0u and let levαpfq, levβpgq be bounded. If the set levαpF q X levβpGqwas unbounded, it would contain an unbounded sequence of points zpkq, k P N. Due tolevαpF q “ levαpfq ‘ U2 and levβpGq “ levβpgq ‘ V2 the zpkq could be written in the form

zpkq “ upkq1 ` u

pkq2 “ v

pkq1 ` v

pkq2 with first components u

pkq1 P levαpfq, vpkq

1 P levβpgq, forming

bounded sequences, and second components upkq2 P U2, v

pkq2 P V2, forming unbounded

sequences. Lemma A.2 ensures that there is a constant C ą 0 such that }upkq2 ´ v

pkq2 } ě

C´1}upkq2 } for all k P N. The unboundedness of the sequence p}upkq

2 }qkPN along with the

boundedness of the sequences p}upkq1 }2qkPN and p}vpkq

1 }2qkPN would therefore result in

0 “ }zpkq ´ zpkq}2 “ }upkq1 ´ v

pkq1 ` u

pkq2 ´ v

pkq2 }2 ě }upkq

2 ´ vpkq2 }2 ´ }upkq

1 ´ vpkq1 }2

ě C´1}upkq2 }2 ´ p}upkq

1 }2 ` }vpkq1 }2q Ñ `8

– a contradiction.iii) Since the level sets levαpfq and levβpgq of the proper, convex and lower semicontinuousfunctions f, g are nonempty and bounded we know that all level sets of f and g arebounded, cf. [19, Corollary 8.7.1]. Since domF X domG “ H there are levels α, β P R

with levαpF q X levβpGq “ H. The bounded sets levαpfq and levβpgq are nonempty, dueto levαpfq ‘ U2 “ levαpF q “ H and levβpgq ‘ V2 “ levβpGq “ H. Consequently f andg are bounded from below, see Detail 18. Without loss of generality we may thereforeassume f ě 0 and g ě 0 (otherwise we can set mf – infu1PU1

fpu1q, mg – infv1PV1 gpv1qand replace f , F , α and g, G, β by f ´ mf , F ´ mf , α ´ mf and g ´ mg, G ´ mg,β ´ mg, respectively), i.e. F ě 0 and G ě 0. Next we show that levα`βpF ` Gq is anonempty compact set. We have levα`βpF ` Gq Ě levαpF q X levβpGq “ H. Furthermorelevα`βpF `Gq is closed due to being a level set of a lower semicontinuous function. Lastlylevα`βpF`Gq Ď levα`βpF qXlevα`βpGq is bounded by (ii), since the needed boundedness oflevα`βpfq and levα`βpgq is only a special case of the already mentioned level boundedness off and g and therewith ensured. Hence levα`βpF`Gq is non empty and compact. Thereforethe (proper) lower semicontinuous function pF `Gq|lev

α`βpF`Gq “ F `G`ιlev

α`βpF`Gq must

be minimized by an u P levα`βpF ` Gq, see [20, 1.10 Corollary] or Theorem 2.5.11, which

clearly also minimizes F ` G. Finally we set γ – F puq ` Gpuq P p´8, α ` βs and notethat argminpF ` Gq “ levγpF ` Gq is a closed subset of the compact set levα`βpF ` Gqand hence itself compact.

107


Next we are interested in the direction of argminpF `Gq. We will see that – under certainassumptions – we have pargminpF ` Gq ´ argminpF ` Gqq Ď P rF s, which is the coreingredient to see that F and G are constant on argminpF ` Gq.Lemma 4.3.19. Let the Euclidean space Rn be decomposed into the direct sum Rn “ U1‘U2

of two subspaces U1, U2 and let F : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u be a convex function which inheresthe translation invariance F pxq “ F px ` u2q for all x P Rn and u2 P U2. Furthermore, letG : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u be any convex function. Then the following holds true:

i) If domFXdomG “ H and F is strictly convex on U1 then all x, x P argminxPRntF pxq`Gpxqu fulfill x´ x P U2 and F pxq “ F pxq, Gpxq “ Gpxq.

ii) If ripdomF q X ripdomGq “ H and F is essentially smooth on U1 and strictly con-vex on ripdomF X U1q then argminxPRnpF pxq ` Gpxqq Ď ripdomF q and all x, x PargminxPRntF pxq ` Gpxqu fulfill x´ x P U2 and F pxq “ F pxq, Gpxq “ Gpxq.

Before proving this lemma we illustrate that in general we really need to require F to beessentially smooth, in order to guarantee the assertions of part ii)

−3−2

−10

12

3 −3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

−1.5−1

−0.50

0.51

1.5 0

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

Figure 4.4: Up: Graph of h and F , Down: argminphq “ r´1, 1s ˆ t0u and some other level sets of h

Example 4.3.20. The shifted Euclidean norm hb : R2 Ñ R given by hbpxq – }x ´ b}2,

where b P R2 is strictly convex on every straight line which does not meet b, by Lemma B.2.Set b “ p1, 0qT and b1 “ ´b “ p´1, 0qT and consider the function h : R2 Ñ R given by

hpxq “ hbpxq ` hb1pxq “ }x´ b}2 ` }x´ b1}2.

108


The only straight line which meets both b and b1 is affptb, b1uq “ R ˆ t0u. Therefore h

is strictly convex on all other straight lines in R2, c.f. also Figure 4.4. In particular h isstrictly convex in the open upper half plane H – tx P R2 : x2 ą 0u. Set U1 – R2, U2 – t0uand consider the functions F,G : R2 Ñ R Y t`8u given by

F pxq –

#hpxq ` x1 for x P H

`8 for x P R2zH , Gpxq – ´x1

Then all general assumptions of Lemma 4.3.19 are fulfilled just as the assumptions of partii) – except that F is not essentially smooth on U1 “ R2; note here that h is continuouslydifferentiable in R2ztb, b1u, so that choosing any boundary point x P B domF “ BH “ R ˆt0u, which is different from b and b1, we have limnÑ8 }∇F pxnq}2 “ }∇hpxq`p1, 0qT }2 “ `8for any sequence pxnqnPN in intpdomF q “ H, which converges to x.

We have argmintF ` Gu “ argminh “ r´1, 1s ˆ t0u here, so that argmintF ` Gu XripdomF q “ H. Moreover the minimizers x “ p1, 0qT and x “ p´1, 0qT neither fulfillx ´ x P U2 nor F pxq “ F pxq, Gpxq “ Gpxq.

Proof of Lemma 4.3.19. i) First we prove that for any x, y P domF and the line segmentlpx, yq – tx ` tpy ´ xq : t P r0, 1su the following statements are equivalent:

a) Fˇlpx,yq

is constant,

b) Fˇlpx,yq

is affine,

c) y ´ x P U2.

We use the unique decompositions x “ x1 `x2, y “ y1 `y2 with x1, y1 P U1 and x2, y2 P U2.

a) ñ b): This is clear since a constant function is in particular an affine one.b) ñ c): If F

ˇlpx,yq

is affine, i.e.,

F px ` tpy ´ xqq “ F pxq ` tpF pyq ´ F pxqq for every t P r0, 1s,

the translation invariance of F yields

F px` tpy ´ xq ´ x2 ´ tpy2 ´ x2qq “ F px´ x2q ` tpF py ´ y2q ´ F px ´ x2qq,F px1 ` tpy1 ´ x1qq “ F px1q ` tpF py1q ´ F px1qq for every t P r0, 1s,

so that Fˇlpx1,y1q

is affine as well. On the other hand F is also strictly convex on lpx1, y1q.Both can be simultaneously only true, if x1 “ y1, which just means that y´x “ y2´x2 P U2.c) ñ a): Let y ´ x P U2, i.e. y1 “ x1, so that y ´ x “ y2 ´ x2. Therefore and due to thetranslation invariance of F we get

F px` tpy ´ xqq “ F px` tpy2 ´ x2qq “ F pxq

109


even for all t P R. In particular F is constant on lpx, yq.Now the assertions of part i) can be seen as follows: Due to the convexity of F`G the wholesegment lpx, xq belongs to argmintF `Gu so that F `G is constant on lpx, xq. Thus, theconvex summands F and G must be affine on lpx, xq Ď dompF `Gq. Now the equivalenceb) ô c) tells us that x ´ x “ ´px ´ xq P U2 and hence F pxq “ F pxq. The remainingGpxq “ Gpxq follows from the last equation and from F pxq ` Gpxq “ F pxq ` Gpxq sinceonly finite values occur.ii) The function f – F |U1

: U1 Ñ RYt`8u is essentially smooth, so that intU1pdom fq is in

particular a nonempty subset of U1. Therefore and by Theorem B.15 we get affpdomF q “affpdomF |U1

‘ U2q “ affpdomF |U1q ‘ U2 “ U1 ‘ U2. Lemma 4.3.11 now says that F is

essentially smooth on affpdomF q. The therewith applicable part i) of Lemma B.6 givesargminpF `Gq Ď ripdomF q. Hence the minimizers of F `G keep unchanged, if we enlargethe values F pxq outside of ripdomF q by setting

F pxq –

#F pxq, for x P ripdomF q`8, for x R ripdomF q .

Hence we get the remaining assertions for x, x P argminpF ` Gq “ argminpF ` Gq byapplying part i) to F and G; note herein that dom F X domG “ ripdomF q X domG “ H,that F is still convex, see Theorem B.8, and strictly convex on U1, since F is by assumptionstrictly convex on ripdomF X U1q “ dompF |U1

q, and that finally U2 still belongs to theperiods space P rF s, since ripdomF q “ ripdomF |U1

‘U2q “ intU1pdom fq‘U2, by Theorem

B.15. l

Theorem 4.3.21. Let F,G : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u be convex functions with ripdomF q XripdomGq “ H. If there is a decomposition

affpdomF q “ A ‘ P

of affpdomF q into a subspace P of P rF s and an affine subspace A Ď Rn such that F isessentially smooth on affpdomF q (or on A) as well as strictly convex on intApdomF |Aqthen

argminxPRn

pF pxq ` Gpxqq Ď ripdomF q

and

x ´ x P P, F pxq “ F pxq,Gpxq “ Gpxq

for all x, x P argminxPRnpF pxq ` Gpxqq.

Proof. Let a P ripdomF q X ripdomGq. Replacing F and G by F1p¨q “ F p¨ ´ aq andG1p¨q “ Gp¨ ´ aq, respectively would neither change the truth value of the assumptions

110

4.4 Homogeneous penalizers and constraints

nor of the assertions; therefore we may without loss of generality assume a “ 0, so thataffpdomF q is a vector subspace of Rn. Write 0 “ a0 ` p0 with some a0 P A and p0 P P .Due to F |A “ F |A`p0 we see that replacing A by the vector subspace A2 “ A ` p0would neither change the truth value of the assumptions nor of the assertions; thereforewe may without loss of generality furthermore also assume that A is a vector subspace ofaffpdomF q. Set now U1 – A and U2 – P . Noting that neither the truth value of theassumptions nor of the assertions changes when considering F,G and F ` G only on thevector space U1 ‘ U2 “ affpdomF q and identifying it with some Rn1

we obtain all claimedassertions by part ii) of Lemma 4.3.19; note here that ripdomF X U1q “ ripdomF q X U1 “intU1

pdomF |U1q, ripdomG|affpdomF qq “ ripdomG X affpdomF qq “ ripdomGq X affpdomF q

by Theorem B.10, and note finally that F is in any case essentially smooth on affpdomF qby Lemma 4.3.11.

Remark 4.3.22.

i) The assumptions of the just proven theorem can be only valid if in fact P “ P rF s.

ii) The essentially smoothness as well as the strictly convexity assumptions on F keepvalid if A is replaced by any other affine subset A Ď R

n with A ‘ P “ affpdomF q “A‘ P .

Proof. i) Since P is a subspace of P rF s we have P Ď P rF s. For the proof of P Ě P rF swe may assume without loss of generality that the affine space affpdomF q is even a vectorsubspace of Rn with origin 0 P domF . Then every arbitrarily chosen p P P rF s belongs toaffpdomF q and can therefore be written in the form p “ a ` p with some a P A, p P P .Hence a “ p ´ p P P rF s, i.e. F px ` λaq “ F pxq for all x P Rn and all λ P R. Choosingany element a from the nonempty set ripdomF q X A “ ripdomF |Aq, see Theorem B.8 andTheorem B.10 we have in particular F pa` λaq “ F paq for all λ P R. This is only possiblefor a “ 0, since F is strictly convex on ta` λa : λ P Ru Ď ripdomF q X A “ ripdomF |Aq “intApdomF |Aq, where we have used Theorem B.10. Consequently p “ a ` p “ p P P .ii) Writing 0 “ a0`p0, 0 “ a0`p0 and noting F |A “ F |A`p0

, F |A “ F |A`p0we may without

loss of generality assume that A and A are vector subspaces. Consider the projectionπ : A Ñ A, x “ a` p ÞÑ a of the vector space A “ A‘ P “ A‘ P onto its subspace A. Wehave N pπq “ P , so that α – π|A : A Ñ A is a vector space isomorphism, which links F |Aand F |A both via F |A “ F |A ˝ α and its consequence intApdomF |Aq “ αrintApdomF |Aqs.Therefore F |A is essentially smooth if and only if F |A is essentially smooth. WritingO – intApdomF |Aq and O – intApdomF |Aq we likewise have that F |O is strictly convexif and only if F |O is strictly convex.


This section is divided into two subsections. In the first subsection we restrict the broadsetting of the Section 4.2 to a less general setting by making a particular choice for Ψ and

111


by putting some assumptions on Φ. In Lemma 4.4.1 we show some implications of theassumptions on Φ for Φ itself and its conjugate function Φ˚. In Remark 4.4.2 we will seethat the Fenchel Duality Theorem 4.2.11 can be applied within our setting. The secondsubsection deals with properties of the minimizing sets. In Theorem 4.4.3 we show thatthe problems pP1,τ q, pP2,λq, pD1,τ q, pD2,λq have a solution for τ ą 0 and λ ą 0, if certainconditions are fulfilled. In Theorem 4.4.4 we prove that under the same conditions andan extra condition there are intervals p0, cq and p0, dq such that SOLpP1,τq, SOLpP2,λq,SOLpD1,τ q, SOLpD2,λq show similar localization behavior for τ “ 0, λ P rd,`8q; τ P p0, cq,λ P p0, dq; and τ P rc,`8q, λ “ 0. In Theorem 4.4.6 the localization behavior is refined forτ P p0, cq and λ P p0, dq. The results there say that, while τ runs from 0 to c and λ runsfrom d to 0, all solver sets have to move. Moreover the mappings, given by τ ÞÑ SOLpP1,τ qand λ ÞÑ SOLpP2,λq are the same – besides a (“direction reversing”) parametrization changeg : p0, cq Ñ p0, dq. Similar the mappings, given by τ ÞÑ SOLpD1,τ q and λ ÞÑ SOLpD2,λq arethe same – besides the same parametrization change g : p0, cq Ñ p0, dq. In the remainingparts of that subsection we deal with g.

4.4.1 Setting

In the rest of this thesis, we deal with the functions

Ψ1 – ιlev1}¨} and Ψ2 – } ¨ },

where } ¨ } denotes an arbitrary norm in Rm with dual norm } ¨ }˚ – max}x}ď1x¨, xy.Constraints and penalizers of this kind appear in many image processing tasks. Note thatΨ1pτ´1xq “ ιlevτ }¨}pxq “ τιlevτ }¨}pxq for τ P p0,`8q. The conjugate functions of Ψ1 and Ψ2

are

Ψ˚1 “ } ¨ }˚ and Ψ˚

2 “ ιlev1}¨}˚ .

and their subdifferentials are known to be

BΨ1pxq “

$&%

t0u if }x} ă 1,

tp P Rm : xp, xy “ }p}˚u if }x} “ 1,

H otherwise

(4.19)

and

BΨ2pxq “"

tp P Rm : }p}˚ ď 1u if }x} “ 0,

tp P Rm : xp, xy “ }x}, }p}˚ “ 1u otherwise.(4.20)

Then the primal problems pP q in (4.10) with µ – τ´1 ą 0 in the case Ψ “ Ψ1 andµ – λ ą 0 in the case Ψ “ Ψ2 become

pP1,τ q argminxPRn

tΦpxq s.t. }Lx} ď τu ,

pP2,λq argminxPRn

tΦpxq ` λ}Lx}u

112


and the dual problems pDq in (4.11) read

pD1,τ q argminpPRm

tΦ˚p´L˚pq ` τ}p}˚u ,

pD2,λq argminpPRm

tΦ˚p´L˚pq s.t. }p}˚ ď λu

We will also consider the cases τ “ 0 and λ “ 0. In what follows we will assume thatFP – Φ : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u and FD – Φ˚p´L˚¨q : Rm Ñ R Y t`8u are invariantunder translation in direction of subspaces UP,2 and UD,2, respectively. Speaking now interms of a general function F : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u we could of course always make theuninteresting choice U2 – t0u; so more precisely we are interested in those decompositionsRn “ U1 ‘ U2 with F pu ` u2q “ F puq for all u P Rn, u2 P U2, in which U2 is chosen aslarge as possible, so that the essential properties of F can be revealed by considering F |U1

.In case of affpdomF |U1

q “ U1 we do not need to refine the decomposition Rn “ U1 ‘ U2

and can think of F to be essentially given by f “ F |U1. In case of affpdomF |U1

q ĂU1, however, it can be convenient to refine the decomposition Rn “ U1 ‘ U2 by writingaffpdomF |U1

q “ a`X1 with some a P affpdomF |U1q and a vector subspace X1 Ď Rn; after

choosing some vector subspace X3 with U1 “ a ` X1 ‘ X3 and setting X2 – U2 we haveRn “ a ` X1 ‘ X2 ‘ X3 and can think of F to be given essentially by F |a`X1

, since theinclusion domF Ď a ` X1 ‘ X2 just means that F pxq “ F pa ` x1 ` x2 ` x3q equals `8for x3 “ 0 and F pa` x1 ` x2q “ F pa` x1q for x3 “ 0.

In those cases where 0 P affpdomF |U1q or where F is replaceable by F p¨ ´ aq we can even

assume a “ 0 so that we have Rn “ X1 ‘ X2 ‘ X3 and can think of F to be given inits essence by F |X1

on X1, then extended to a larger subspace X1 ‘ X2 by demandingtranslation invariance in direction X2, and finally set to `8 on RnzpX1 ‘X2q. This is thecore structure, which Φ will now be demanded to have. In addition X1, X2 and X3 shallbe pairwise orthogonal:

Let Φ’s domain Rn have a decomposition Rn “ X1 ‘ X2 ‘ X3 into pairwise orthogonalsubspaces such that

Φpxq “ Φpx1 ` x2 ` x3q “#φpx1q if x3 “ 0

`8 if x3 “ 0, (4.21)

where φ “ Φ|X1: X1 Ñ R Y t`8u is a function meeting the following demands:

i) domφ is an open subset of X1 with 0 P domφ,

ii) φ belongs to Γ0pX1q and is strictly convex and essentially smooth (compare [19, p.251]),

iii) φ has a minimizer.

113


The following lemma shows that the subdifferentials of φ and Φ are closely related and thatΦ˚ is of the same basic structure as Φ, whereas the roles of X2 and X3 are interchanged.Note that for the proof of the first two parts we use only the direct decomposition ofΦ’s domain Rn into the pairwise orthogonal subspaces X1, X2, X3; none of the additionalproperties of φ is needed.

Lemma 4.4.1. For a function Φ fulfilling the setting in (4.21) and any points x, x˚ P Rn

the following holds true:

i) BΦpxq “ BΦpx1 ` x2 ` x3q “#

H if x3 “ 0

Bφpx1q ‘ t0u ‘ X3 if x3 “ 0.

ii) Φ˚px˚q “ Φ˚px˚1 ` x˚

2 ` x˚3q “

#φ˚px˚

1q if x˚2 “ 0

`8 if x˚2 “ 0

, where

iii) ‚ φ˚ belongs to Γ0pX1q and is essentially smooth and essentially strictly convex(compare [19, p. 253])

‚ 0 P intpdomφ˚q and 0 P ripdomΦ˚q

Proof. i) and ii) We rewrite Φ in the form Φ “ Φ1 ZΦ2 ZΦ3, where

Φ1 “ φ : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u, Φ2 “ 0X2: X2 Ñ R, Φ3 “ ιt0u : X3 Ñ R Y t`8u.

Since Rn “ X1 ‘X2 ‘X3 is a direct decomposition into pairwise orthogonal subspaces wecan apply Theorem B.16 and obtain

BΦpxq “ BΦ1px1q ‘ BΦ2px2q ‘ BΦ3px3q “ Bφpx1q ‘ t0u ‘ S3px3q,

where S3px3q “ H for x3 “ 0 and S3px3q “ X3 for x3 “ 0, as well as

Φ˚px˚q “ Φ˚1px˚

1q ` Φ˚2px˚

2q ` Φ˚3px˚

3q “ φ˚px˚1q ` ι0px˚

2q ` 0

iii) φ P Γ0pX1q implies φ˚ P Γ0pX1q. Changing the coordinate system via an orthogonaltransformation x ÞÑ x “ Qx changes φ and φ˚ in the same way: If φpxq “ φpQxq thenalso φ˚pxq “ φ˚pQxq. Hence [19, Theorem 26.3] can be extended for functions like φ, φ˚ :

X1 Ñ R Y t`8u, which are only defined on a subspace X1 of Rn. So the strict convexityof φ implies that φ˚ is essentially smooth and the essentially smoothness of φ implies thatφ˚ is essentially strictly convex. In order to prove 0 P intpdomφ˚q we note that argminφ,consisting of just one element, is a nonempty and bounded level set of φ. Consequentlyall level sets levαpφq, α P R, are bounded, compare [19, Corollary 8.7.1]. This implies 0 Pintpdomφ˚q (of course regarded relative to X1), compare [19, Corollary 14.2.2]. Therefromwe finally obtain 0 P intpdomφ˚q ‘ X3 “ ripdomΦ˚q, because domφ˚ ‘ X3 “ domΦ˚ bypart ii).

114


Remark 4.4.2. By our setting – in first line by the condition i) on Φ – we have 0 PdomΦ and also 0 P ripdomΦ˚q by Lemma 4.4.1. Therefore our setting ensures that theassumptions i) - iv) of Lemma 4.2.11 are fulfilled: Regarding the first three assumptionswe note RpLq “ ripRpLqq so that every of these assumptions is of the form

ripAq X ripBq “ H

with convex subsets A,B of some Euclidean space. Both for Ψ “ Ψ1 and Ψ “ Ψ2 we have0 P A and 0 P intpBq for sets A,B corresponding to condition i), ii) or iii) of Lemma4.2.11, respectively. Since A is in any case convex and nonempty there is some ak P ripAqwith ak Ñ 0, cf. Theorem B.7. Hence we have also aK P intpBq for a large enough K.In particular ripAq X ripBq “ ripAq X intpBq “ H. Also the fourth assumption of Lemma4.2.11 is clearly fulfilled in our setting, since 0 P Rp´L˚q X ripdomΦ˚q.

4.4.2 Properties of the solver sets and the relation between their

parameters

The next theorem shows that all our problems pP1,τ q, pD1,τ q, pP2,λq, pD2,λq have a solutionfor τ ą 0 and λ ą 0 if certain conditions on argminΦ and N pLq “ argmin }L¨} are fulfilled.

Theorem 4.4.3. Let Φ P Γ0pRnq be a function fulfilling the setting (4.21) and let L P Rm,n

so that X2 X N pLq “ t0u and argminΦ X N pLq “ H. Then all solver sets SOLpP1,τ q,SOLpD1,τ q, SOLpP2,λq, SOLpD2,λq are nonempty for τ P p0,`8q, λ P p0,`8q and thecorresponding minima are finite.

Proof. Note in the following that the requirements i) - iv) of Lemma 4.2.11 are fulfilled.Let λ ą 0. Since Φp´L˚¨q is lower semicontinuous on the compact Ball B – Bλp0qr}¨}˚s –

tp P Rm : }p}˚ ď λu we have SOLpD2,λq “ H. The attained minimum is finite, because0 P B X dompΦ˚p´L˚¨qq holds true by part iii) of Lemma 4.4.1. Lemma 4.2.11 ensuresthat also SOLpP2,λq “ H, where the attained minimum is finite, since dompΦ ` λ}L ¨ }q “domΦ “ H. Let now τ ą 0. We get SOLpP1,τq “ H, by part iii) of Lemma 4.3.18,applied to F – Φ, U1 – X1 ‘ X3, U2 – X2 and G – ιlevτ }L¨}, V1 – RpL˚q, V2 – N pLq;the assumption of this Lemma are checked in Detail 19. Due to the therein appearingrelation domΦ X levτ}L ¨ } “ H the attained minimum is finite. Lemma 4.2.11 gives nowSOLpD1,τ q “ H, where the attained minimum is also finite since dompΦ˚p´L˚¨q`τ} ¨}˚q “domΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ H.

Recall in the next theorem that inf H “ `8 since any m P r´8,`8s is a lower boundof H Ď r´8,`8s. The theorem states that there are three main areas where our solversets SOLpP1,τ q and SOLpP2,λq must be located: either they are completely contained inargmin }L ¨ } “ N pLq or argminΦ, or they are located “between” them, in the sense ofSOLpP‚q X N pLq “ H and SOLpP‚q X argminΦ “ H. Similar relations hold true forSOLpD1,τ q and SOLpD2,λq. Note that SOLpD1,τ q “ H can happen in the border case

115


τ “ 0 as we show in Example 4.4.5. Also notice in the following theorem that OP pΦ, }L ¨ }qcan either be p0,`8q or r0,`8q for a function Φ which fulfills our setting (4.21). In caseτ R OP pΦ, }L ¨ }q we have to be carefull when regarding the problem

argminxPRn

tΦpxq s.t. }Lx} ď τu ,

since rewriting it to

argminxPRn

Φpxq ` ιlevτ }L¨}pxq

(

is not possible in this case, cf. the table on page 77.

Theorem 4.4.4. Let Φ P Γ0pRnq be a function fulfilling the setting (4.21) and let L P Rm,n

so that X2 XN pLq “ t0u, X3 XRpL˚q “ t0u and argminΦXN pLq “ H. Then the values

c – infxPargminΦ

}Lx} “ minxPargminΦ

}Lx}, (4.22)

d – infpPargminΦ˚p´L˚¨q

}p}˚ “

$&%

minpPargminΦ˚p´L˚¨q

}p}˚, if argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ H

`8, if argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ H(4.23)

are positive. Their geometrical meaning for the primal and dual problems is expressed bythe equations

c “ mintτ P r0,`8q : SOLpP1,τ q X argminΦ “ Hu“ mintτ P r0,`8q : SOLpD1,τ q X t0u “ Hu

and

d “ inftλ P r0,`8q : SOLpP2,λq X N pLq “ Hu“ inftλ P r0,`8q : SOLpD2,λq X argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ Hu,

where the infima are actually minima of the latter two sets, if one of them is not empty.Furthermore the value of τ allows to locate SOLpP1,τ q and SOLpD1,τ q, according to

SOLpP1,τ q Ď N pLq, SOLpD1,τ q Ď argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q, if τ “ 0#SOLpP1,τ q X N pLq “ HSOLpP1,τ q X argminΦ “ H

+,

#SOLpD1,τ q X argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ HSOLpD1,τ q X t0u “ H

+, if τ P p0, cq

SOLpP1,τ q Ď argminΦ, SOLpD1,τ q Ď t0u, if τ P rc,`8q.

The value of λ similar allows to locate SOLpP2,λq and SOLpD2,λq, according to

SOLpP2,λq Ď N pLq, SOLpD2,λq Ď argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q, if λ P rd,`8q#SOLpP2,λq X N pLq “ HSOLpP2,λq X argminΦ “ H

+,

#SOLpD2,λq X argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ HSOLpD2,λq X t0u “ H

+, if λ P p0, dq

SOLpP2,λq Ď argminΦ, SOLpD2,λq Ď t0u, if λ “ 0.

116


Proof. In the proof we use the abbreviations Brpaq – Brpaqr} ¨ }s and B˚

r paq – Brpaqr} ¨ }˚s.1. c is really a minimum: We need only to show that the function ιargminpΦq ` }L ¨ } attainssomewhere in Rn its minimum. In order to apply part iii) of Lemma 4.3.18 we decomposeRn into the orthogonal subspaces U1 – X1 ‘ X3, U2 – X2 and V1 – RpL˚q, V2 – N pLq,respectively and set F – ιargminpΦq and G – }L ¨ }, respectively; then all assumptions arefulfilled for certain α, β, see Detail 20, so that ιargminpΦq ` }L ¨ } attains indeed its minimum.2. d is really a minimum if argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ H : Let p0 P argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q and setr – }p0}˚. The set argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q is closed, due being a level set of the lower semicon-tinuous function Φ˚p´L˚¨q. Hence C – argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q XB

˚

r is a nonempty compact set,which must provide a minimizer p P argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q for the continuous function } ¨ }˚|C .Clearly we also have }p}˚ “ infpPargminΦ˚p´L˚¨q }p}˚, since }p}˚ ě r “ }p0}˚ ě }p}˚ for all

p P argminΦ˚p´L˚¨qzB˚

r .3. Next c ą 0 and d ą 0 are proven, where we consider only the interesting caseargminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ H. We have

c “ 0 ô minxPargminΦ

}Lx} “ 0

ô Dx P argminΦ : }Lx} “ 0

ô argminΦ X N pLq “ H.

Since c ě 0 this just means c ą 0 ô argminΦXN pLq “ H, so that we really obtain c ą 0.Using some calculus from Convex Analysis we obtain

d “ 0 ô argminΦ X N pLq “ H,

see Detail 21. Due to d ě 0 this just means d ą 0 ô argminΦ X N pLq “ H, so that alsod ą 0.4. In order to verify that the different views on c and d are really equivalent, we set

T – tτ P r0,`8q : Dx0 P argminpΦq : τ “ }Lx0}u,TP – tτ P r0,`8q : SOLpP1,τ q X argminΦ “ Hu,TD – tτ P r0,`8q : SOLpD1,τ q X t0u “ Hu

and

Λ – tλ P r0,`8q : Dp0 P argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q : λ “ }p0}˚u,ΛP – tλ P r0,`8q : SOLpP2,λq X N pLq “ Hu,ΛD – tλ P r0,`8q : SOLpD2,λq X argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ Hu,

respectively, and show that

T “ď

x0PIT

t}Lx0}u, TP “ TD “ď

xoPIT

r}Lx0},`8q

and

Λ “ď

px0,p0qPIΛ

t}p0}˚u, ΛD “ ΛP “ď

px0,p0qPIΛ

r}p0}˚,`8q,

117


respectively, where IT – tx0 P Rn : 0 P BΦpx0qu and IΛ – tpx0, p0q P Rn ˆ Rm :

Lx0 “ 0, x0 P BΦ˚p´L˚p0qu are some index sets. The above way of representing T , TP ,TD and Λ, ΛP , ΛD, respectively, then elucidates c “ minT “ minTP “ minTD andd “ inf Λ “ inf ΛP “ inf ΛD, respectively; here the headline of part 2 of the proof ensuresthat the last three infima are actually minima of the respective sets, if one – an thus all –of them is nonempty. For all τ P r0,`8q we indeed have by Fermat’s rule

τ P Tô Dx0 P R

n : 0 P BΦpx0q ^ τ “ }Lx0}ô Dx0 P IT : τ P t}Lx0}uô τ P

ď

x0PIT

t}Lx0}u

τ P TPô Dx0 P R

n : }Lx0} ď τ ^ 0 P BΦpx0qô Dx0 P IT : }Lx0} ď τ

ô τ Pď

x0PIT

r}Lx0},`8q

and – by using again Fermat’s Rule as well as the calculus for subdifferentials, see [19, p.222-225], x P BΦ˚px˚q ô x˚ P BΦpxq and (4.20) – also

τ P TDô Dp0 P R

m : 0 P BpΦ˚p´L˚¨q ` τ} ¨ }˚q|p0 ^ p0 “ 0

ô 0 P BpΦ˚p´L˚¨qq|0 ` τB} ¨ }˚|0ô 0 P ´LBΦ˚p´L˚0q ` τB1r} ¨ }˚˚sô Dx0 P R

n : x0 P BΦ˚p0q ^ 0 P ´Lx0 ` Bτ r} ¨ }sô Dx0 P R

n : 0 P BΦpx0q ^ }Lx0} ď τ

ô τ Pď

x0PIT

r}Lx0},`8q

Similar we obtain for λ P r0,`8q the equivalences

λ P Λ

ô Dp0 P Rm : 0 P BpΦ˚p´L˚¨qq|p0 ^ λ “ }p0}˚

ô Dp0 P Rm : 0 P LBΦ˚p´L˚p0q ^ λ “ }p0}˚

ô Dx0PRn,Dp0PRm : x0 P BΦ˚p´L˚p0q ^ Lx0 “ 0 ^ λ “ }p0}˚

ô Dpx0, p0q P IΛ : λ “ }p0}˚

ô λ Pď

px0,p0qPIΛ

t}p0}˚u

118


besides

λ P ΛD

ô Dp0 P Rm : 0 P BpΦ˚p´L˚¨qq|p0 ^ λ ě }p0}˚

ô Dp0 P Rm : 0 P LBΦ˚p´L˚p0q ^ λ ě }p0}˚

ô Dx0PRn,Dp0PRm : x0 P BΦ˚p´L˚p0q ^ Lx0 “ 0 ^ λ ě }p0}˚

ô Dpx0, p0q P IΛ : λ ě }p0}˚

ô λ Pď

px0,p0qPIΛ

r}p0}˚,`8q

and

λ P ΛP

ô Dx0 P Rn : 0 P BpΦp¨q ` λ}L ¨ }q|x0 ^ Lx0 “ 0

ô Dx0 P Rn : 0 P BΦpx0q ` λL˚B} ¨ }|Lx0 ^ Lx0 “ 0

ô Dx0 P Rn : 0 P BΦpx0q ` λL˚B} ¨ }|0 ^ Lx0 “ 0

ô Dx0 P Rn : 0 P BΦpx0q ` L˚λB

˚

1 ^ Lx0 “ 0

ô Dx0PRn,Dp0PRm : p0 P λB˚

1 ^ 0 P BΦpx0q ` L˚p0 ^ Lx0 “ 0

ô Dx0PRn,Dp0PRm : }p0}˚ ď λ ^ ´L˚p0 P BΦpx0q ^ Lx0 “ 0

ô Dx0PRn,Dp0PRm : x0 P BΦ˚p´L˚p0q ^ Lx0 “ 0 ^ }p0}˚ ď λ

ô Dpx0, p0q P IΛ : λ ě }p0}˚

ô λ Pď

px0,p0qPIΛ

r}p0}˚,`8q.

5. Finally we prove the 16 claimed relations of the theorem. The subset-relations forτ “ 0 and λ “ 0 are trivially true. In oder to prove the primal relations for τ P p0, cqand τ P rc,`8q we make use of c “ mintτ P r0,`8q : SOLpP1,τq X argminΦ “ Hu. Forτ P p0, cq we directly get

SOLpP1,τ q X argminΦ “ H;

this also implies that any x P SOLpP1,τ q, τ P p0, cq must fulfill }Lx} ě τ ą 0. (}Lx} ă τ

would mean that x is a local minimizer of Φ, i.e. a global minimizer of the convex functionΦ; so we would end up in the contradictory x P SOLpP1,τ q X argminΦ “ H). So we have

SOLpP1,τ q X N pLq “ H

for τ P p0, cq. Furthermore the above reformulation of c ensures that there is an x PSOLpP1,τ q X argminΦ for τ “ c. Clearly also x P SOLpP1,τ q X argminΦ for τ ą c, so thatSOLpP1,τ q X argminΦ “ H for τ P rc,`8q. Since no solvers of pP1,τ q can be outside ofargminΦ, as soon as one solver of pP1,τ q belongs to this level set of Φ, we even get

SOLpP1,τ q Ď argminΦ

119


for τ P rc,`8q.In order to prove the dual relations for τ P p0, cq and τ P rc,`8q we use c “ mintτ Pr0,`8q : SOLpD1,τ q X t0u “ Hu. For τ P p0, cq this immediately implies

SOLpD1,τ q X t0u “ H

and SOLpD1,cq X t0u “ H. The latter means Φ˚p´L˚0q ` c}0}˚ ď Φp´L˚pq ` c}p}˚ forall p P Rm. For τ P rc,`8q addition of the inequality pτ ´ cq}0}˚ ď pτ ´ cq}p}˚ yieldsΦ˚p´L˚0q ` τ}0}˚ ď Φ˚p´L˚pq ` τ}p}˚ for all p P Rm. This just means 0 P SOLpD1,τ q forτ P rc,`8q. We even have

SOLpD1,τ q “ t0ufor τ P rc,`8q: Let an additional p P SOLpD1,τ q be given. In order to prove p “ 0 itsuffices to check that Theorem 4.3.21 can be applied to F p¨q “ Φ˚p´L˚¨q and Gp¨q “ τ} ¨}˚,since this theorem would then give τ}p}˚ “ Gppq “ Gp0q “ 0 and hence the wantedp “ 0. Indeed all assumptions of this theorem are fulfilled: Clearly F and G are convexfunctions with ripdomF q X ripdomGq “ ripdomF q “ H. Next the needed decompositionaffpdomF q “ AF‘PF is obtained, by using Theorem 4.3.16, see Detail 22. Finally Theorem4.3.12 ensures that F “ E ˝M is essentially smooth on affpdomF q. So all assumptions ofTheorem 4.3.21 are really fulfilled. Finally we show

SOLpD1,τ q X argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ H

for τ P p0, cq: Assume that there is a p P SOLpD1,τ qXargminΦ˚p´L˚¨q for a τ P p0, cq. Thefunctions F p¨q “ Φp´L˚¨q and Gp¨q “ τ} ¨ }˚ fulfill the assumptions of Theorem 4.3.21, seeDetail 23, so that p P argminpF ` Gq Ď intApdomF q. Consider F and G now only on thevector subspace A – affpdomF q by setting f – F |A P Γ0pAq and } ¨ }1 – } ¨ }˚|A P Γ0pAq.Since F pxq “ `8 for x R A we still had p P argminpPApfppq`τ}p}1q and p P argminpPA fppq.The function f : A Ñ RY t`8u, beeing essentially smooth by Lemma 4.4.1 and Theorem4.3.12, would be differentiable in p P intApdomF q “ intApdom fq. By Theorem B.5 and byFermat’s rule we had Bfppq “ t0u. Using Fermat’s rule and the calculus for subdifferentialswe hence obtained 0 P Bpf ` τ} ¨ }1q|p “ Bfppq ` τB} ¨ }1|p “ τB} ¨ }1|p. The already provenSOLpD1,τ q X t0u “ H says p “ 0, so that equation (4.20) implied the contradictory0 P B} ¨ }1|p Ď S1rp} ¨ }1q˚s.

In order to prove the primal relations for λ P p0, dq we make use of d “ inftλ ě 0 :

SOLpP2,λq X N pLq “ Hu, while for proving the primal relations for λ P rd,`8q we mayassume d ă `8, i.e. d “ mintλ ě 0 : SOLpP2,λq X N pLq “ Hu, since in the vacuouscase d “ `8, meaning rd,`8q “ H, there is nothing to show. For λ P p0, dq we then getimmediately

SOLpP2,λq X N pLq “ Hand for λ “ d we get SOLpP2,dqXN pLq “ H. The latter means Φpxq`d}Lx} ď Φpxq`d}Lx}for all x P SOLpP2,dq X N pLq and x P Rn. For λ ě d adding pλ ´ dq}Lx} ď pλ ´ dq}Lx}

120


hence gives Φpxq ` λ}Lx} ď Φpxq ` λ}Lx} for all x P SOLpP2,dq X N pLq and x P Rn, sothat we have SOLpP2,λq X N pLq “ H for all λ P rd,`8q. We even have

SOLpP2,λq Ď N pLqfor λ P rd,`8q: Choose any x P SOLpP2,λq X N pLq and consider an arbitrarily chosenx P SOLpP2,λq. In order to prove Lx “ 0 it suffices to check that Theorem 4.3.21 can beapplied to F “ Φ and Gp¨q “ λ}L ¨ }, since this theorem would then give λ}Lx} “ Gpxq “Gpxq “ 0 and hence the needed Lx “ 0. Indeed all assumptions of this theorems arefulfilled, see Detail 24. Finally we show

SOLpP2,λq X argminΦ “ Hfor λ P p0, dq: It clearly suffices to show that any minimizer of Φ can never belong toSOLpP2,λq for any real λ ą 0. To this end fix λ P p0,`8q and let an arbitrary x P argminΦ

be given. Regard Φ and Φp¨q ` λ}L ¨ } only on spanpxq by considering the functionsf, h : R Ñ R Y t`8u given by fptq – Φptxq and hptq – Φptxq ` λ}Lptxq} “ Φptxq `m|t|,where m – λ}Lx} ą 0 due to the assumption argminΦ X N pLq “ H. Φ is proper,convex, lower semicontinuous and essentially smooth on the affine hull of its effectivedomain of definition. These properties carry over to f , see Detail 25. Since 1 P R isclearly a minimizer of f we obtain, using part ii) of Lemma B.6, that f is differentiablein 1 P R with derivative f 1p1q “ 0. Hence also h is differentiable in 1 with derivativeh1p1q “ f 1p1q `m “ m ą 0. Consequently there is an ε ą 0 such that hp1 ´ εq ă hp1q. Itsrewritten form Φ pp1 ´ εqxq`λ}Lp1´εqx} ă Φpxq`λ}Lx} shows that x is not a minimizerof SOLpP2,λq.In order to prove the dual relations for λ P p0, dq we make use of d “ inftλ ě 0 :

SOLpD2,λq X argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ Hu, while for proving the dual relations for λ P rd,`8qwe may assume d ă `8, i.e. d “ mintλ ě 0 : SOLpD2,λq X argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ Hu, sincein the vacuous case d “ `8 there is again nothing to show. For λ P p0, dq we then getimmediately

SOLpD2,λq X argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ H;

this also implies that any p P SOLpD2,λq with λ P p0, dq must fulfill }p}˚ ě λ ą 0.(}p}˚ ă λ would mean that p is a local minimizer of Φ˚p´L˚¨q and hence a global mini-mizer of this convex function; so we would end up in the contradictory p P SOLpD2,λq XargminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ H). So we have

SOLpD2,λq X t0u “ Hfor τ P p0, dq. Furthermore the above reformulation of d ensures that there is an p PSOLpD2,λq XargminΦ˚p´L˚¨q for λ “ d. Clearly also p P SOLpD2,λq XΦ˚p´L˚¨q for λ ą d,so that SOLpD2,λq X argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ H for λ P rd,`8q. Since no solvers of pD2,λq canbe outside of argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q, as soon as one solver of pD2,λq belongs to this level set ofΦ˚p´L˚¨q, we even get

SOLpD2,λq Ď argminΦ˚p´L˚¨qfor λ P rd,`8q.

121


Now we give the announced example, showing that SOLpD1,τ q “ H can happen in theborder case τ “ 0.

Example 4.4.5. The particular choice

Φpxq – φpxq –

#x ´ 1 ` log 1

xfor x ą 0

`8 for x ď 0

gives a functions Φ : R Ñ RY t`8u that fulfills the requirements of our setting along withthe identity matrix L – p1q and } ¨ } “ | ¨ |. The conjugate function Φ˚ : R Ñ R Y t`8ucan explicitely be expressed as

Φ˚ppq “#

´ logp1 ´ pq for p ă 1

`8 for p ě 1,

cf. [5] or [3, p. 50f]. Here clearly the proper function Φ˚ is not bounded below so thatSOLpD1,0q “ ´ argminΦ˚ “ H.

The following theorem specifies the relations between (P1,τ), (P2,λ), (D1,τ ) and (D2,λ) forthe special setting in this section. We will see that for every τ P p0, cq, there exists auniquely determined λ such that the solution sets of (P1,τ ) and (P2,λ) coincide. Note thatby the Remarks 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 this is not the case for general functions Φ,Ψ P Γ0pRnq.Moreover, we want to determine for given τ , the value λ such that (P2,λ) has the samesolutions as (P1,τ ). Note that part i) of Theorem 4.2.6 was not constructive.

Theorem 4.4.6. Let Φ P Γ0pRnq be of the form (4.21) and let L P Rm,n such that X2 XN pLq “ t0u, X3 X RpL˚q “ t0u and argminΦ X N pLq “ H. Define c by (4.22) and d by(4.23). Then, for τ P p0, cq and λ P p0, dq, the problems pP1,τ q, pP2,λq, pD1,τ q, pD2,λq havesolutions with finite minima. Further there exists a bijective mapping g : p0, cq Ñ p0, dqsuch that for τ P p0, cq and λ P p0, dq we have

#SOLpP1,τ q “ SOLpP2,λqSOLpD1,τ q “ SOLpD2,λq

+if pτ, λq P gr g

and for τ P p0, cq, λ P r0,`8q or λ P p0, dq, τ P r0,`8q,#SOLpP1,τ q X SOLpP2,λq “ HSOLpD1,τ q X SOLpD2,λq “ H

+if pτ, λq R gr g.

For pτ, λq P gr g any solutions x and p of the primal and dual problems, resp., fulfill

τ “ }Lx} and λ “ }p}˚.

122


Proof. Note in the following that the requirements i) - iv) of Lemma 4.2.11 are fulfilledfor τ P p0,`8q and λ P p0,`8q.Theorem 4.4.3 ensures that all solver sets SOLpP1,τ q, SOLpP2,λq, SOLpD1,τ q, SOLpD2,λqare not empty for τ P p0, cq and λ P p0, dq and that only finite minima are taken.

The core of the proof consists of two main steps: In the first step we use Theorem 4.2.11,Theorem 4.3.21 and Theorem 4.2.6 ii) to construct mappings g : p0, cq Ñ p0, dq, f : p0, dq Ñp0, cq with the following properties:

@τ P p0, cq :#SOLpP1,τ q Ď SOLpP2,gpτqqSOLpD1,τ q Ď SOLpD2,gpτqq

+, (4.24)

@λ P p0, dq :#SOLpP2,λq Ď SOLpP1,fpλqqSOLpD2,λq Ď SOLpD1,fpλqq

+. (4.25)

In the second step we verify that f ˝ g “ idp0,cq and g ˝ f “ idp0,dq so that g is bijective and(4.24) and (4.25) actually hold true with equality. Finally, we deal in a third part withpτ, λq R grg.

1. First we show that for all x P RnzN pLq, p P Rmzt0u and for all λ, τ ą 0 the followingequivalence holds true:

$’&’%

x P SOLpP1,τ q,p P SOLpD1,τ q,

λ “ }p}˚

,/./-

ô

$’&’%

x P SOLpP2,λq,p P SOLpD2,λq,

τ “ }Lx}

,/./-. (4.26)

We have on the one hand for x P RnzN pLq, p P Rmzt0u, τ ą 0 and λ ą 0 the equivalences

x P SOLpP1,τ q, p P SOLpD1,τ qô τ p P BΨ1pτ´1Lxq, ´ L˚p P BΦpxqô Ψ1pτ´1Lxq ` Ψ˚

1pτ pq “ xτ´1Lx, τ py, ´ L˚p P BΦpxqô }Lx} ď τ, τ}p}˚ “ xLx, py, ´ L˚p P BΦpxqô }Lx} “ τ, τ}p}˚ “ xLx, py, ´ L˚p P BΦpxqô }Lx} “ τ, }Lx}}p}˚ “ xLx, py, ´ L˚p P BΦpxq,

where we used Lemma 4.2.11 in step 1, the Fenchel equality [19, Theorem 23.5] in step 2and applied in step 4 the inequality xp, p1y ď }p}}p1}˚ for p “ Lx, p1 “ p. On the otherhand we obtain similar for x P RnzN pLq, p P Rmzt0u, τ ą 0 and λ ą 0 the equivalences

x P SOLpP2,λq, p P SOLpD2,λqô λ´1p P Bψ2pλLxq, ´ L˚p P BΦpxqô Ψ2pλLxq ` Ψ˚

2pλ´1pq “ xλLx, λ´1py, ´ L˚p P BΦpxqô λ}Lx} “ xLx, py, }p}˚ ď λ, ´ L˚p P BΦpxqô λ}Lx} “ xLx, py, }p}˚ “ λ, ´ L˚p P BΦpxqô }p}˚ “ λ, }Lx}}p}˚ “ xLx, py, ´ L˚p P BΦpxq.

123


Adding the conditions λ “ }p}˚ and τ “ }Lx}, respectively, we see directly that (4.26)holds true. Now we can construct the function g on p0, cq as follows: Let τ P p0, cq and set

gpτq – }p}˚

with any p P SOLpD1,τ q; this is well defined by Detail 26. Theorem 4.4.4 assures SOLpP1,τ qXN pLq “ H, SOLpD1,τ q X t0u “ H and SOLpD1,τ q X argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ H, so that

}Lx} ą 0, }p}˚ ą 0, }p}˚ ă d (4.27)

for all x P SOLpP1,τ q, and for all p P SOLpD1,τ q; see Detail 27 for the last inequality. By thesecond and third inequality in (4.27) we see that gpτq P p0, dq, so that g : p0, cq Ñ p0, dq.The wanted inclusions in (4.24) follow now from (4.26), which is allowed to apply, by thefirst and second inequality in (4.27).

The function f on p0, dq is constructed as follows: Let λ P p0, dq and set

fpλq – }Lx}

with any x P SOLpP2,λq; this is well defined, by Detail 28. Theorem 4.4.4 assures SOLpD2,λqXt0u “ H, SOLpP2,λq X N pLq “ H and SOLpP2,λq X argminΦ “ H, so that

}p}˚ ą 0, }Lx} ą 0, }Lx} ă c (4.28)

for all p P SOLpD2,λq, and for all x P SOLpP2,λq; see Detail 29 for the last inequality.

By the second and third inequality in (4.28) we see that fpλq P p0, cq, so that f : p0, dq Ñp0, cq. The inclusions in (4.25) follow now from (4.26), which is allowed to apply, by thefirst and second inequality in (4.28).

2. First we note that

SOLpP1,τ q X SOLpP1,τ 1q “ H, (4.29)

SOLpD2,λq X SOLpD2,λ1q “ H (4.30)

for all distinct τ, τ 1 P p0, cq and all distinct λ, λ1 P p0, dq, respectively, cf. detail 30.Next we prove the bijectivity of g : p0, cq Ñ p0, dq by showing f˝g “ idp0,cq and g˝f “ idp0,dq.In doing so we will also see that (4.24) actually holds true with equality. Let τ P p0, cq bearbitrarily chosen and set τ 1 “ fpgpτqq. Using (4.24) and (4.25) with λ “ gpτq yields

SOLpP1,τ q Ď SOLpP2,gpτqq Ď SOLpP1,τ 1q,SOLpD1,τ q Ď SOLpD2,gpτqq Ď SOLpD1,τ 1q.

Since SOLpP1,τ q “ H we must have τ “ τ 1 in order to avoid a contradiction to (4.29).Similarly we can prove for an arbitrarily chosen λ P p0, dq and λ1 – gpfpλqq that λ “ λ1,see detail 31.

3. It remains to show SOLpP1,τq X SOLpP2,λq “ H and SOLpD1,τ q X SOLpD2,λq “ H

124


for these pτ, λq P rp0, cq ˆ r0,`8qs Y rr0,`8q ˆ p0, dqs with pτ, λq R gr g. Having The-orem 4.4.4 in mind, we may restrict us to those pτ, λq P p0, cq ˆ p0, dq which are not ingr g. For such τ , λ we have τ “ g´1pλq and λ “ gpτq. By (4.29) and (4.30) we thereforehave SOLpP1,τ q X SOLpP1,g´1pλqq “ H and SOLpD2,λq X SOLpD2,gpτqq “ H. SubstitutingSOLpP1,g´1pλqq by SOLpP2,λq and SOLpD2,gpτqq by SOLpD1,τ q we are done. l

Here are some more properties of the function g.

Corollary 4.4.7. Let the assumptions of Theorem 4.4.6 be fulfilled. Then the bijectiong : p0, cq Ñ p0, dq is strictly monotonic decreasing and continuous.

Proof. Since decreasing bijections between open intervals are strict decreasing and contin-uous we need only to show that f “ g´1 : p0, dq Ñ p0, cq is decreasing. Let 0 ă λ1 ă λ2 ă d

and xi P argminxPRntΦpxq ` λiΨpxqu, i “ 1, 2, where Ψpxq – }Lx}.Then we know that τi “ Ψpxiq, i “ 1, 2. Assume that Ψpx1q ă Ψpx2q. Then we obtainwith λ2 “ λ1 ` ε and ε ą 0 the contradiction

Φpx2q ` λ2Ψpx2q “ Φpx2q ` λ1Ψpx2q ` εΨpx2qě Φpx1q ` λ1Ψpx1q ` εΨpx2qą Φpx1q ` λ1Ψpx1q ` εΨpx1q“ Φpx1q ` λ2Ψpx1q.

l

Remark 4.4.8. The function g is in general neither differentiable nor convex as the fol-lowing example shows: The strictly convex function Φ, given by

Φpxq –

#px ´ 4q2 for x ď 2

2px ´ 3q2 ` 2 for x ą 2

has exactly one minimizer, namely x0 “ 3. Clearly Φ, } ¨ } – | ¨ | and L “ p1q fulfill allassumptions of Theorem 4.4.6 if we set X2 – t0u. For λ ě 0 and τ P p0, cq “ p0, x0q wehave

argminxPR

tΦpxq s.t. |x| ď τu “ tτu — txu.

By Theorem 4.4.6 we have argminpΦp¨q ` λ| ¨ |q “ tτu exactly for λ “ gpτq. An explicitformula for gpτq is obtained by applying Fermat’s rule: 0 P BpΦp¨q ` gpτq| ¨ |q|τ “ ptΦ1p¨qu `gpτqB| ¨ |q|τ “ tΦ1pτq ` gpτqu; by rearranging we get

gpτq “ ´Φ1pτq “

$’&’%

2p4 ´ τq for 0 ă τ ă 2

4 for τ “ 2

4p3 ´ τq for 2 ă τ ă x0

,/./-

Obviously g is neither differentiable nor convex.

125

APPENDIX A

Supplementary Linear Algebra and

Analysis

Lemma A.1. Let V and W be vector spaces over R. A mapping ϕ : V Ñ W is linear if

i) ϕpv ` v1q “ ϕpvq ` ϕpv1q for all v, v1 P V ,

ii) ϕptvq “ tϕpvq for all v P V and all t P r0, 1s.

Note that only t P r0, 1s is required.

Proof of Lemma A.1. By assumption ϕ is additive. Moreover ϕ is also homogeneous: Letv P V be arbitrarily chosen. In case t P r0, 1s we have ϕptvq “ tϕpvq by assumption ii). Incase t P p1,`8q application of the same assumption to t1 – 1

tP r0, 1s and v1 – tv P V

yields ϕptvq “ tt1ϕpv1q “ tϕpt1v1q “ tϕpvq. Using ϕptvq “ tϕpvq for v P V , t P p0,`8q andϕp´vq ` ϕpvq “ ϕp´v ` vq “ ϕp0q “ ϕp0 ¨ 0q “ 0ϕp0q “ 0, i.e. ϕp´vq “ ´ϕpvq we finallyobtain also in case t P p´8, 0q the equation ϕptvq “ ϕp´tp´vqq “ ´tϕp´vq “ tϕpvq.

The following Lemma provides a useful inequality, which reflects the fact that a directdecomposition X “ X1 ‘ X2 of an Euclidean vector space X of finite dimension can onlyconsist of subspaces X1 and X2 which form a strict positive angle α P p0, 1

2πs, analytically

described by

´1 ă cospπ ´ αq “ infh1PX1zt0u,h2PX2zt0u

xh1, h2y}h1}2}h2}2

.

The equivalent inequality infh1PX1XS1,h2PX2XS1xh1, h2y ą ´1 follows indeed easily from theinequality of the next theorem for } ¨ } “ } ¨ }2, see Detail 32. Note however that the aboveinequality and the inequality in Lemma A.2 are in general only true in finite-dimensionalspaces. These inequalities do not directly transfer to infinite dimensional inner product

127

A. Supplementary Linear Algebra and Analysis

spaces as the example X “ spante1u ‘ spante1 ` 12e2, e1 ` 1

3e3, e1 ` 1

4e4, . . . u Ď l2pRq shows;

recall here that the notation X “ X1 ‘X2 still shall mean only an inner decomposition inthe sense of pure vector spaces without demanding additional properties like (topological)closeness on X1 and X2.

Lemma A.2. Let X1, X2 be subspaces of Rn with X1 XX2 “ t0u and let } ¨ } be any normon R

n. Then there is a constant C ě 1 such that

}h1} ď C}h1 ` h2}

for all h1 P X1 and h2 P X2.

Proof. It suffices to find a constant C ą 0 for which the claimed inequality holds true,since enlarging the constant then clearly keeps the inequality true. In case h1 “ 0 theinequality is fulfilled for any C ą 0. Therefore we may assume without loss of generalitythat h1 P X1 X S1; note therefore that the following statements are equivalent:

DC ą 0 @h1 P X1zt0u @h2 P X2 : }h1} ď C}h1 ` h2},DC ą 0 @x1 P X1 X S1 @x2 P X2 : }x1} ď C}x1 ` x2}.

So we need only to find a constant C ą 0 such that 1C

ď }h1 ` h2} for all h1 P X1 X S andall h2 P X2. We have

}h1 ` h2} ě |}h2} ´ }h1}| “ }h2} ´ 1 ě 2

for }h2} ě 3, on the one hand. The mapping ϕ : pX1 X S1q ˆ pX2 X B3q Ñ R, givenby ϕph1, h2q – }h1 ` h2}, is continuous on its compact domain of definition. Thereforeϕ attains its minimum c “ ϕph1, h2q for some h1 P S X X1, h2 P X2 X B3. CombiningX1 X X2 “ t0u and }h1} “ 0 ensures h2 “ ´h1, so that c “ }h1 ` h2} ą 0 and hence}h1 `h2} ě c ą 0 for all h1 P X1 XS and h2 P X2 XB3 on the other hand. In total we have}h1 ` h2} ě mint2, cu ą 0 for h1 P X1 X S and h2 P X2. Setting C – 1

mint2,cuą 0 we are

done.

Next we introduce the notion of an affine mapping via four equivalent conditions; notetherein that condition i) can also be demanded for a function f which is defined only on anonempty convex set. For condition ii) and iii) c.f. also [19, p. 7].

Definition A.3. Let A,A1 be nonempty affine subspaces of Rn and U , U 1 Ď Rn the corre-sponding vector subspaces that are parallel to A and A1, respectively. A mapping f : A Ñ A1

is called affine, iff one of the following equivalent conditions is fulfilled:

i) fpa1 ` tpa2 ´ a1qq “ fpa1q ` tpfpa2q ´ fpa1qq for all a1, a2 P A and all t P r0, 1s,

ii) fpa1 ` tpa2 ´ a1qq “ fpa1q ` tpfpa2q ´ fpa1qq for all a1, a2 P A and all t P R,

128

iii) There is a linear mapping ϕ : U Ñ U 1 such thatfpa2q ´ fpa1q “ ϕpa2 ´ a1q for all a1, a2 P A,

iv) There is a linear mapping ϕ : U Ñ U 1 and a point a0 P A such thatfpaq “ fpa0q ` ϕpa´ a0q for all a P A.

Remark A.4. The four conditions are really equivalent:“iv) ñ iii)”: Let ϕ : U Ñ U 1 be linear and a0 P A such that fpaq “ fpa0q ` ϕpa ´ a0q forall a P A. Then we get

fpa2q ´ fpa1q “ fpa2q ´ fpa0q ´ rfpa1q ´ fpa0qs“ ϕpa2 ´ a0q ´ ϕpa1 ´ a0q“ ϕpa2 ´ a0 ´ ra1 ´ a0sq“ ϕpa2 ´ a1q

for all a1, a2 P A.“iii) ñ ii)”: Using iii) for a1

1 “ a1 P A and a12 “ a1 ` tpa2 ´ a1q P A we get

fpa1 ` tpa2 ´ a1qq ´ fpa1q “ ϕpa12 ´ a1

1q “ ϕptpa2 ´ a1qq“ tϕpa2 ´ a1q “ tpfpa2q ´ fpa1qq

for all a1, a2 P A and all t P R, so that ii) holds true.“ii) ñ i)” is obviously true.“i) ñ iv)”: Choose any a0 P A and set ϕpuq – fpa0 ` uq ´ fpa0q for u P U . Then clearlyϕ : U Ñ U 1 and fpaq “ fpa0q ` ϕpa ´ a0q for all a P A “ a0 ‘ U . It remains to show thatϕ is linear. By Lemma A.1 it suffices to show that ϕ is additive and fulfills ϕptuq “ tϕpuqfor all u P U and all t P r0, 1s. In order to prove the latter let u P U be arbitrarily chosen.Using i) with a1 “ a0 P A and a2 “ a0 ` u P a0 ` U “ A we obtain indeed

ϕptuq “ fpa0 ` tuq ´ fpa0q“ fpa0 ` tpa2 ´ a0qq ´ fpa0q“ fpa0q ` trfpa2q ´ fpa0qs ´ fpa0q“ trfpa0 ` uq ´ fpa0qs“ tϕpuq

for all t P r0, 1s. In order to prove the additivity of we note that choosing t “ 12

in i) givesthe equation fp1

2pa1 ` a2qq “ 1

2rfpa1q ` fpa2qs for all a1, a2 P A. For arbitrarily chosen

u, u1 P U we obtain therefrom and by 12

P r0, 1s the identity

ϕpu` u1q “ fpa0 ` u ` u1q ´ fpa0q “ f`12pra0 ` 2us ` ra0 ` 2u1sq

˘´ fpa0q

“ 12fpa0 ` 2uq ` 1

2fpa0 ` 2u1q ´ fpa0q

“ 12ϕp2uq ` 1

2ϕp2u1q “ ϕp1

22uq ` ϕp1

22u1q “ ϕpuq ` ϕpu1q.

So ϕ is additive as well.

129

APPENDIX B

Supplementary Convex Analysis

Lemma B.1. Let F : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u be a convex function.

i) For any two points x, y P domF and λ P R we have

F pp1 ´ λqx` λyq ď p1 ´ λqF pxq ` λF pyq if λ P r0, 1s, (B.1)

F pp1 ´ λqx` λyq ě p1 ´ λqF pxq ` λF pyq if λ P Rzp0, 1q. (B.2)

ii) If there are three different collinear points a, b, c P domF which yield the same valueF paq “ F pbq “ F pcq then F is constant on the line segment copta, b, cuq spanned bythese three points.

Proof. i) The inequality (B.1) is just the inequality from the definition of convexity. Inorder to prove (B.2) we set

zλ – x` λpy ´ xq “ p1 ´ λqx` λy (B.3)

for λ P Rzp0, 1q. If F pzλq “ `8 we clearly have F pzλq “ `8 ě p1 ´ λqF pxq ` λF pyq.Assume now F pzλq ă `8, i.e. zλ P domF . In case λ ě 1 rewriting equation (B.3) yieldsthe convex combination y “ ´1´λ

λx` 1

λzλ “ p1 ´ 1

λqx` 1

λzλ and hence by the convexity of

F the inequality F pyq ď p1 ´ 1λ

qF pxq ` 1λF pzλq. Since only finite values occur this can be

rewritten as 1λF pzλq ě p 1

λ´ 1qF pxq ` F pyq which is equivalent to the claimed inequality

in (B.2), since λ ě 1 ą 0. In case λ ď 0 we can similar write x as convex combinationx “ ´ λ

1´λy ` 1

1´λzλ “ p1 ´ 1

1´λqy ` 1

1´λzλ so that the convexity of F yields the inequality

F pxq ď p1 ´ 11´λ

qF pyq ` 11´λ

F pzλq. Since only finite values occur this can be rewritten as1

1´λF pzλq ě F pxq ` λ

1´λF pyq which is equivalent to the claimed inequality in (B.2), since

1 ´ λ ě 1 ą 0.ii) Without loss of generality we may assume that b is the point “between” the endpointsa and c, so that cota, b, cu — lpa, bq is the line segment between a and c. Set v – F paq “F pbq “ F pcq P R. We have to show that any z P lpa, cq also fulfills F pzq “ v. In case

131

B. Supplementary Convex Analysis

z P lpa, bq, we can write z as convex combination z “ p1´λqa`λb with some λ P r0, 1s andas affine combination z “ p1´λ1qb`λ1c with some λ1 P Rzp0, 1q, respectively. So inequalities(B.1) and (B.2) give F pzq ď p1´λqF paq`λF pbq “ v and F pzq ě p1´λ1qF pbq`λ1F pcq “ v,respectively. All in all we thus have F pzq “ v. In case z P lpb, cq “ lpc, bq we get theassertion analogously by interchanging the roles of a and c.

Of course norms are not strictly convex. However we have the following lemma.

Lemma B.2. The Euclidean norm } ¨ }2 : Rn Ñ R is strictly convex on every straight line,which does not contain the origin 0.

Proof. Let l be a straight line in Rn with 0 R l and let x, y P l be two distinct points.The strict Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality xx, yy ă }x}2}y}2 holds true for x and y, since thesevectors are linearly independent. For all λ P p0, 1q we hence get

}λx` p1 ´ λqy}22 “ }λx}22 ` }p1 ´ λqy}22 ` 2λp1 ´ λqxx, yyă }λx}22 ` }p1 ´ λqy}22 ` 2λp1 ´ λq}x}2}y}2“ p}λx}2 ` }p1 ´ λqy}2q2

and therewith the needed }λx` p1 ´ λqy}2 ă λ}x}2 ` p1 ´ λq}y}2.

The following Theorem is obtained from [19, p. 52] and [19, Theorem 7.4].

Theorem B.3. Let f : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u be a proper, convex function. Its closure clf

fulfills

i) clfpx0q “ lim infxÑx0 fpxq for every x0 P Rn.

ii) clf is a proper convex and lower semicontinuous function which agrees with f exceptperhaps at relative boundary points of dom f .

For the proof of the following theorem see [19, Corollary 7.5.1]

Theorem B.4. For a function F P Γ0pRnq one has

F px˚q “ limλÒ1

F pp1 ´ λqa` λx˚q

for every a P domF and every x˚ P Rn.

For the proof of the following theorem cf. [19, Theorem 26.1] after identifying affpdomF qwith some Rm.

132

Theorem B.5. Let F P Γ0pRnq be essentially smooth on affpdomF q — A. Then BpF |Aqpxqcontains at most one subgradient for every x P Rn. In case x R ripdomF q we haveBpF |Aqpxq “ H while in case x P ripdomF q there is exactly one subgradient in BpF |Aqpxq.In particular the function F |A is subdifferentiable in every x P ripdomF q.

Lemma B.6. Let F : Rn Ñ RYt`8u be a proper and convex function, which is essentiallysmooth on A – affpdomF q. Then

i) argminxPRnpF pxq`Gpxqq Ď ripdomF q for every convex function G : Rn Ñ RYt`8uwith ripdomF q X ripdomGq “ H.

ii) argminxPRn F pxq Ď ripdomF q and F |A is differentiable in every x P argminF .

Proof. i) Let all assumptions be fulfilled. By Theorem B.3 we may further assume withoutloss of generality that F is closed, i.e. lower semicontinuous, since replacing F by clF wouldneither affect the assumptions nor the assertions of the theorem. Let x P argminpF ` Gq.Restricting F and G to A “ affpdomF q by setting f – F |A and g – G|A we still havex P argminpf ` gq. Using Theorem B.10 we see that still

ripdom fq X ripdom gq “ ripdomF q X ripdomG X Aq “ ripdomF q X ripdomGq X A

“ pripdomF q X Aq X ripdomGq “ ripdomF q X ripdomGq “ H.

Using the therewith applicable Sum rule and Fermat’s rule we obtain

0 P Bpf ` gqpxq “ Bfpxq ` Bgpxq.

In particular Bfpxq “ H so that the essentially smoothness of f gives x P intApdom fq “ripdomF q by Theorem B.5.ii) The inclusion follows from the just proven by choosing G ” 0 since then ripdomF q XripdomGq “ ripdomF q “ H by Theorem B.8. From the inclusion we now also get thedifferentiability assertion by applying Theorem B.5.

The proofs of the following two theorems can be found in [19, p. 45].

Theorem B.7. Let C be a convex set in Rn. Let x P ripCq and x P C. Then p1´λqx`λx

belongs to ripCq (and hence in particular to C) for 0 ď λ ă 1.

Theorem B.8. Let C be any convex set in Rn. Then C and ripCq are convex sets in Rn,having the same affine hull, and hence the same dimension, as C. In particular ripCq “ Hif C “ H.

The following theorem is obtained from [19, Theorem 7.6] and [19, Theorem 6.2].

133


Theorem B.9. For a proper, convex function F : Rn Ñ R Y t`8u and τ P pinf F,`8qwe have

riplevτF q “ riplevăτF q “ levăτF X ripdomF q.

Furthermore all these sets have the same dimension as domF .

Theorem B.10. Let C be a convex set in Rn, and let A be an affine set in Rn whichcontains a point of ripCq. Then

ripAX Cq “ AX ripCq, (B.4)

AX C “ AX C, (B.5)

rbpAX Cq “ AX rbpCq, (B.6)

affpAX Cq “ AX affpCq. (B.7)

Proof. For the proof of the first and the second equality see [19, Corollary 6.5.1]. Withthese statements we now also get

rbpAX Cq “ AX CzripAX Cq “ pAX CqzpA X ripCqq “ AX pCzripCqq “ AX rbpCq.

For the proof of the remaining forth statement let a P A X ripCq. Since the truth valueof the assertion stays unchanged when translating the coordinate system we may assumea “ 0, so that affpAq “ spanpAq, affpCq “ spanpCq and affpAXCq “ spanpAXCq. Due tospanpAXCq “ spanpAXpspanpCqXCqq “ spanppAXspanpCqqXCq and AXspanpCq “ pAXspanpCqq X spanpCq we may restrict us to subspaces A Ď spanpCq, so that we can identifyspanpCq with Rm where m “ dimpspanpCqq. Choose ε ą 0 so small that Bε Ď C. ThenspanpAq “ spanpAXBεq Ď spanpAXCq Ď spanpAq X spanpCq “ spanpAq XR

m “ spanpAqso that we have in particular spanpAX Cq “ spanpAq X spanpCq “ A X spanpCq.

Theorem B.11. For convex subsets C1 and C2 of Rn the following are equivalent:

i) C1 ` C2 “ C1 ‘ C2,

ii) affpC1q ` affpC2q “ affpC1q ‘ affpC2q.

Proof. Assume without loss of generality that C1 and C2 are not empty. Translating C1 orC2 does neither change the truth value of the statement C1 ` C2 “ C1 ‘ C2 nor the truthvalue of the statement affpC1q ` affpC2q “ affpC1q ‘ affpC2q. Without loss of generality wemay therefore assume 0 P ripC1q and 0 P ripC2q.Clearly ii) implies i), since C1 Ď affpC1q and C2 Ď affpC2q. We show the remainingdirection i) ñ ii) by proving its contrapositive; assume that the sum affpC1q ` affpC2qis not direct, so that there are distinct a1, a

11 P affpC1q and distinct a2, a

12 P affpC2q such

that a1 ` a2 “ a11 ` a1

2. Let a be any of the four points and let C be the correspondingset C1 or C2. We can find a λa ą 0 such that λaa P C; indeed, by 0 P ripCq there is

134

an ε ą 0 such that Bε X affpCq Ď C. Hence and since affpCq is an affine set we getλaa “ λaa ` p1 ´ λq0 P affpCq X Bε Ď C for λa chosen sufficiently small. For sufficientlysmall chosen λ ą 0 the four points c1 – λa1, c

11 – λa1

1 and c2 – λa2, c12 – λa1

2 belonghence to C1 and C2, respectively, and fulfill still c1 ` c2 “ c1

1 ` c12 under preservation of the

distinctions c1 “ c11 and c2 “ c1

2. In particular the sum C1 ` C2 is also not direct.

Remark B.12. The condition that C1 and C2 are convex is essential to guarantee theimplication C1 ` C2 “ C1 ‘ C2 ñ affpC1q ` affpC2q “ affpC1q ‘ affpC2q as the followingexample shows: Consider the sum of the upper circle line C1 – tpcosptq, sinptqq : t P r0, πsuwith the line C2 – tp0, λq P R

2 : λ P Ru. We have C1 ` C2 “ r´1, 1s ˆ R “ C1 ‘ C2.However affpC1q “ R2 and affpC2q “ C2, so that the sum affpC1q ` affpC2q is clearly notdirect.

Lemma B.13. Assume that two nonempty convex sets C1, C2 Ď Rn give a direct sumC1 ‘ C2. Restricting the vector addition ` : R

n ˆ Rn Ñ R

n to C1 ˆ C2 gives then ahomeomorphism between the product space C1 ˆC2 and the (topological) subspace C1 ‘C2

of Rn.

Proof. By theorem B.11 we know that the sum of affpdomC1q — A1 and affpdomC2q — A2

is also a direct one. Therefore it suffices to show that `|A1Â2is a homeomorphism between

A1 Â2 and A1 ‘A2. Choose any a˚ “ pa˚1 , a

˚2q P A1 Â2 and set X1 – A1 á˚

1 and X2 –

A2á˚2 . Noting that `|A1Â2

is a homeomorphism between A1Â2 and A1‘A2 if and onlyif f – `|X1ˆX2

is a homeomorphism between X1 ˆX2 and X1 ‘X2 it suffices to prove thelatter. To this end note that f is clearly continuous and surjective. SinceX1`X2 “ X1‘X2

we see that f is also injective and hence bijective. Finally f´1 : X1 ‘ X2 Ñ X1 ˆ X2 iscontinuous: Let x “ x1 ` x2 P X1 ‘ X2 and let xpkq “ x

pkq1 ` x

pkq2 P X1 ‘ X2 converge

to x. We have to show that f´1pxpkqq “ pxpkq1 , x

pkq2 q converges to f´1pxq “ px1, x2q. By

Lemma A.2 we know that there exists a constant C ą 0 such that }h1} ď C}h1 ` h2} forall h1 P X1, h2 P X2. In particular we obtain

}xpkq1 ´ x1} ď C}pxpkq

1 ´ x1q ` pxpkq2 ´ x2q} “ C}xpkq ´ x} Ñ 0

as k Ñ `8, so that xpkq1 Ñ x1 as k Ñ `8. By role reversal we obtain also x

pkq2 Ñ x2 as

k Ñ `8, so that really pxpkq1 , x

pkq2 q Ñ px1, x2q as k Ñ `8.

The key in the previous proof was that the directness of the sum of two convex sets C1, C2

keep maintained when enlarging these sets to their affine hull. This is, however, in generalnot true for a direct sum C1 ‘ C2, where one of the summands C1, C2 is not convex. Insuch cases it can happen that `|C1ˆC2

: C1 ˆC2 Ñ C1 ‘C2 is no longer a homeomorphism,as the following example illustrates:

Example B.14. Consider the non-convex set C1 – t0, 1u and the convex set C2 – r0, 1q.Although their sum C1 `C2 “ r0, 2q “ C1 ‘C2 is a direct one, the sum affpC1q ` affpC2q “R ` R is not direct and `|C1ˆC2

is not a homeomorphism between C1 ˆ C2 and C1 ‘ C2,

135


since these topological spaces are not at all homeomorphic: C1 ‘C2 “ r0, 2q is a connectedspace while C1 ˆ C2 “ rt0u ˆ r0, 1qs Y rt1u ˆ r0, 1qs is not a connected space.

Theorem B.15. Let C and A be a convex and an affine subset of Rn, respectively, whosesum C ` A is direct. Then the following holds true:

ripA‘ Cq “ A‘ ripCq, (B.8)

A‘ C “ A‘ C, (B.9)

rbpA‘ Cq “ A‘ rbpCq, (B.10)

affpA‘ Cq “ A‘ affpCq. (B.11)

Proof. Assume without loss of generality that A and C are not empty. Note first that the“largest” sum of the four right hand side sums, i.e. the sum A ` affpCq is a direct one byTheorem B.11. Hence the other three sums A ` ripCq, A ` C and A ` rbpCq are directall the more. Noting that the truth value of the statement affpA ` Cq “ A ` affpCq doesnot change when translating A or C we may assume 0 P A and 0 P C without loss ofgenerality, so that in particular A Ď A` C and C Ď A` C. We then get

A` affpCq “ affpAq ` affpCq Ď affpA` Cq ` affpA` Cq “ spanpA` Cq ` spanpA ` Cq“ spanpA` Cq Ď spanpspanpAq ` spanpCqq “ spanpAq ` spanpCq “ A ` affpCq

and therewith A‘ affpCq “ spanpA‘ Cq “ affpA‘ Cq.Consider now the topological spaces C1 – affpAq “ A and C2 – affpCq and their productspace C1 ˆ C2, equipped with the product topology. We have

intC1ˆC2pAˆ Cq “ intC1

pAq ˆ intC2pCq “ Aˆ intC2

pCq,Aˆ C

C1ˆC2 “ AC1 ˆ C

C2 “ Aˆ CC2

and

BC1ˆC2pAˆ Cq “ A ˆ C

C1ˆC2zintC1ˆC2pAˆ Cq

“´Aˆ C

C2

¯z pAˆ intC2

pCqq

“ A ˆ´CC2zintC2

pCq¯

“ A ˆ BC2pCq.

By means of the homeomorphism `|C1ˆC2: C1 ˆ C2 Ñ C1 ‘ C2 from lemma B.13 these

three equations can be translated to

intC1`C2pA` Cq “ A ` intC2

pCq,A` C

C1`C2 “ A ` CC2

and

BC1`C2pA` Cq “ A ` BC2

pCq,which gives the equations (B.8), (B.9), (B.10).

136

The following theorem is a special case of [33, Corollary 2.4.5] and an equation used inits proof. Cf. also [20, Theorem 10.5]. Note that we need an orthogonal decompositionRn “ X1 ‘ X2 ¨ ¨ ¨ ‘ Xn in order to guarantee xx, x˚y “ řn

i“1xxi, x˚i y.

Theorem B.16. Let Rn “ X1‘¨ ¨ ¨‘X2 be a decomposition of Rn into pairwise orthogonalvector subspaces X1, . . . , Xn. For any proper functions fi : Xi Ñ R Y t`8u and their

semidirect sum f “ f1 Z f2 Z . . .Z fn : Rn Ñ RYt`8u, fpxq “ fpx1`¨ ¨ ¨`xnq –nři“1

fipxiqwe have

i) rf1 Z f2 Z . . .Z fns˚ “ f˚1 Z f˚

2 Z . . .Z f˚n , i.e.

f˚px˚q “ f˚px˚1 ` ¨ ¨ ¨ ` x˚

nq “nři“1

f˚i px˚

i q for every x˚ P Rn.

ii) Bfpxq “ Bfpx1 ` ¨ ¨ ¨ ` xnq “nÀi“1

Bfipxiq for every x P Rn.

Proof. i) For any x˚ “ px˚1 , . . . , x

˚nq we have

fpx˚q – supxPRn

rxx, x˚y ´ fpxqs “ supx1PX1

. . . supxnPXn

nÿ

i“1

rxxi, x˚i y ´ fipxiqs “

nÿ

i“1

f˚i px˚

i q.

ii) Let x “ x1 ` ¨ ¨ ¨ ` xn be arbitrarily chosen. In case xi R dom fi for some i the equationand the directness of its right-hand side sum holds vacuously true. In case xi P dom fi forall i P t1, . . . , nu the claimed equation also holds true since for any x˚ “ x˚

1 ` . . . x˚n we

have the equivalences

x˚ P Bfpxqô @z “ z1 ` z2 ` ¨ ¨ ¨ ` zn P R

n : fpzq ě fpxq ` xz ´ x, x˚yô @z “ z1 ` z2 ` ¨ ¨ ¨ ` zn P R

n : fpzq ´ fpxq ´ xz ´ x, x˚y ě 0

ô @z “ z1 ` z2 ` ¨ ¨ ¨ ` zn P Rn :

nÿ

i“1

rfipziq ´ fipxiq ´ xzi ´ xi, x˚i ys ě 0

ô @i P t1, . . . , nu @zi P Xi : fipziq ´ fipxiq ´ xzi ´ xi, x˚i y ě 0

ô @i P t1, . . . , nu : x˚i P Bfipxiq.

Finally note that the directness of the sum Bf1px1q ‘ ¨ ¨ ¨ ‘ Bfnpxnq is inherited from thedirect sum X1 ‘ ¨ ¨ ¨ ‘ Xn.

As corollary of the previous Theorem B.16 we get the following theorem.

137


Theorem B.17. Let f : Rn Ñ RY t`8u be a proper function and let dom f be containedin some affine subset A of Rn with difference space U . Then

Bfpxq “#

H if x R ABf |Apxq ‘ UK if x P A

for every x P Rn.

Proof. There is an x0 P dom f . Translating the origin of the coordinate system to x0through replacing f by fp¨ ´ x0q would not affect the truth value of the claimed equation.Therefore we may assume x0 “ 0 without loss of generality, so that A “ U is even avector subspace of Rn. Setting X1 – A “ U , X2 – UK and defining proper functionsf1 : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u, f2 : X2 Ñ R Y t`8u by

f1px1q – f |X1px1q and f2px2q –

#0 if x2 “ 0

`8 if x2 “ 0

allows us to write f in the form fpxq “ fpx1 ` x2q “ f1px1q ` f2px2q for all x P Rn.Applying Theorem B.16 yields

Bfpxq “ Bfpx1 ` x2q “ Bf1px1q ‘ Bf2px2q

“#

H if x2 “ 0

Bf1px1q ‘ UK if x2 “ 0

“#

H if x R UBf1pxq ‘ UK if x P U

“#

H if x R ABf |Apxq ‘ UK if x P A

for every x P Rn.

138

APPENDIX C

Elaborated details

Detail 1. The intersection of compact subsets of a non-Hausdorff space does not need to becompact again: We will construct an example for this phenomenon in three steps. First wewill obtain a non-Hausdorff space pX 1,O1q by gluing two copies of the interval pr0, 1s, r0, 1s\

O�1q to an “interval” which has two different right-hand side endpoints 1, 1. Next we willshow that homeomorphic copies of the original spaces are contained in pX 1,O1q as certainsubspaces pX 1

1, X11 \ O1q and pX 1

2, X12 \ O1q. Finally we will show that the intersection

pX 11 X X 1

2, pX 11 X X 1

2q \ O1q of these compact subspaces is homeomorphic to the half-openinterval pr0, 1q, r0, 1q \ O�1q and hence not compact. Consider the space

`pt´1u ˆ r0, 1sq Y pt1u ˆ r0, 1sqloooooooooooooooooomoooooooooooooooooon

—X

, X \ O�2Rlooomooon

—O

˘,

consisting of two copies t´1u ˆ r0, 1s — X´1 and t1u ˆ r0, 1s — X1 of the interval r0, 1s,equipped with the usual topology. In order to glue the space pX,Oq to an “interval” withtwo right-hand side endpoints we set

X 1 – r0, 1q Y t1, 1u,

where 1 and 1 are two different elements which are not contained in r0, 1q; moreover weequip X 1 with the identification topology O1 which is induced by O and the mapping f :

X Ñ X 1 given by

fpt, aq –

$’&’%

t for t P r0, 1q1 for t “ 1 and a “ 1

1 for t “ 1 and a “ ´1.

The space pX 1,O1q is not a Hausdorff space since every O1X–neighborhoods U of 1 has

nonempty intersection with every O1X–neighborhood U of 1 because both U and U contain

infinitely many of the points 1 ´ 1n, n P N. However 1 and 1 are the only distinct points

139

C. Elaborated details

in pX 1,O1q which can not be separated from each other by distinct neighborhoods; i.e. allsubspaces of pX 1,O1q, which contain at most one of these endpoints, are Hausdorff spaces.In particular the sets

X 1a – f rXas,

a P t´1, 1u, are Hausdorff spaces. By Lemma 2.3.13 the mapping f |Xa, a P t´1, 1u acts as

a homeomorphism between pXa, Xa \ Oq and pX 1a, X

1a \ O1q for a P t´1, 1u. In particular

both X 1´1 and X 1

1 are compact subsets of pX 1,O1q. However their intersection

X 1´1 X X 1

1 “ f |X1

“t1u ˆ r0, 1q

‰

is homeomorphic to`t1u ˆ r0, 1q, pt1u ˆ r0, 1qq \O

˘, i.e. to

`r0, 1q, r0, 1q \O�1

˘and hence

not compact. We note here that our construction could also be done in a more elegantway if we had used the mapping idr0,1q : r0, 1q Ñ r0, 1q as “Anheftungsabbildung” in orderto stick two copies of the interval pr0, 1s, r0, 1s \ O�1q together, cf. [14, p. 54]; howeverthis would bring the need to introduce further topological notions. Moreover the constructedspace pX 1,O1q should be homeomorphic to the space presented by Steen and Seebach insection “Telophase Topology” of their book “Counterexamples in Topology”, see [22, p. 92].

Detail 2. The intersection of two both compact and closed subsets K1, K2 of a topologicalspace pX,Oq is again closed and compact: Clearly K1 X K2 is again a closed subset ofpX,Oq. Due to

K1 X K2 “ K1 X pK1 X K2q P K1 \ ApX,Oq “ ApK1, K1 \ Oq

the intersection K1 X K2 is also a closed subset of the compact space pK1, K1 \ Oq andhence a compact subset of this space by part i) of Theorem 2.1.1. From the compactness ofthe subspace

`K1 X K2, pK1 X K2q \ pK1 \ Oq

˘of pK1, K1 \ Oq we conclude that

`K1 X K2, pK1 X K2q \ pK1 \ Oq

˘“`K1 X K2, pK1 X K2q \ O

˘

is also a compact subspace of the original space pX,Oq, since beeing compact is an intrinsicproperty of a topological (sub)space, cf. Definition 1.1.7; i.e. K1 XK2 is a compact subsetof pX,Oq.

Detail 3. The Definition in [22, p. 74] is not totally correct: In that book the right ordertopology for a linearly ordered space pX,ďq is said to be the topology which is generatedby basis sets of the form Sa “ tx|x ą au. However the whole space X needs in general tobe added to that set system in order to really obtain a basis for a topology: Consider forinstance the linearly ordered set pX,ďq – pr´8,`8s,ďq. The union of all sets Sa is onlythe set p´8,`8s “ X. Instead of adding the set X to the set system formed by the Sathe problem could also be repaired by replacing the word “basis” by “subbasis”. For the leftorder order topology there is the very same problem. It can be repaired analogously.

140

Detail 4. K 1 – tz P Z : z ď z1u is a compact subset of pZ, Těq: Let pO1iqiPI be some open

covering of K 1. At least one of these open sets, lets call it O1, must cover z1 and hence alsoevery z ď z1, i.e. every z P K 1, by the interval-like structure of the set O1 P Tě. Taking O1

already yields the needed finite subcover.

Detail 5. The equivalences in p˚q and p˛q in the proof of Theorem 2.5.16 hold true: Notethat the harder direction “ð” of the equivalence in p˚q is true, since every compact setK P KpRnq “ KApRnq is contained in the closed ball BRp0q, if the radius R is chosen largeenough. The other direction “ñ” is true since we can simply choose K “ BRp0q. Nextwe proof the equivalence in p˛q. The totally ordered set pZ,ďq – pr´8,`8s,ďr´8,`8sqwith the natural order on r´8,`8s has both a minimum and a maximum. Hence partii) of Lemma 2.4.14 can be applied and we obtain KAt`8upr´8,`8s, T q “ tZzU 1 : U 1 PU 1p`8q X T u. After taking complements this reads

U 1p`8q X T “ tZzK 1 : K 1 P KAt`8upr´8,`8s, T qu

which directly shows that the equivalence in p˛q is true.

Detail 6. pf : pRn8,O

�n8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is continuous at the point 8 if and only if

pf : pRn8,O

�n8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s,Oďq is continuous at the point 8: Let pf : pRn

8,O�n8 q Ñ

pr´8,`8s, T q be continuous at the point 8, i.e. for any T –neighborhood T of `8 “pfp8q there is a neighborhood U P O�n

8 of 8 with pfrUs Ď T . In order to show thatpf : pRn

8,O�n8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s,Oďq is continuous at the point 8 let any Oď–neighborhood

O of `8 “ pfp8q be given. Since O contains a set of the form pα,`8s — T P T weobtain with some corresponding neighborhood U P O�n

8 of 8 the inclusion f rUs Ď T Ď O

and have therewith shown one implication. Let now, to the contrary, pf : pRn8,O

�n8 q Ñ

pr´8,`8s,Oďq be continuous at the point 8, i.e. for any Oď–neighborhood O of `8 “pfp8q there is a neighborhood U P O�n

8 of 8 with pfrUs Ď O. In particular the mappingpf : pRn

8,O�n8 q Ñ pr´8,`8s, T q is also continuous in `8, since every T –neighborhood of

`8 is also a Oď–neighborhood of `8.

Detail 7. The product space pY 1,O1q�pY 2,O2q — pY,Oq of two locally compact Hausdorffspaces is again a locally compact Hausdorff space: Let px1, x2q, py1, y2q be two differentpoints in pY,Oq with, say, x1 ‰ y1. Since pY 1,O1q is a Hausdorff space there exist disjointneighborhoods U 1 and V 1 of x1 and y1, respectively. Then clearly U – U 1 ˆ Y 2 and V –

V 1 ˆ Y 2 are disjoint neighborhoods of px1, x2q and py1, y2q, respectively, in pY,Oq. So thelatter topological space is again a Hausdorff space. Moreover pY,Oq is also locally compact:Let y “ py1, y2q P Y . Since pY 1,O1q and pY 2,O2q are locally compact there exist compactneighborhoods U 1 P U 1py1q and U2 P U2py2q. The neighborhood U – U 1 ˆ U2 of y is thencompact in virtue of Tichonov’s Theorem 2.3.6.

Detail 8. The coercivity assertion of Lemma 2.7.1 is contained in Theorem 3.3.6 as specialcase: F1 and G1 are coercive; for instance F1 “ φ˝H |RpH˚q is a concatenation of the coercivemapping φ and the injective and hence normcoercive linear mapping H |RpH˚q : RpH˚q Ñ

141


RpHq; cf. also the proof of Theorem 3.2.1. Moreover the mappings F1 : X1 Ñ p´8,`8sand G1 : Y1 Ñ p´8,`8s are lower semicontinuous and hence in particular locally bounded.Finally F2 “ 0X2

and G2 “ 0Y2 are clearly bounded below.

Detail 9. Both p}qxnk}qkPN and p}qynk

}qkPN would be bounded above by some B ą 0: If oneof this sequences, say pqxnk

q without loss of generality, would be unbounded there would be a

subsequence pqxnkjqjPN with }qxnkj

}X Ñ `8 as j Ñ `8. Since qF is normcoercive we would

get } qF pqxnkjq}Z Ñ `8 as j Ñ `8. This contradicts (3.2).

Detail 10. There is an element b P ZzMAXďpZq with K 1 Ď bs: If ZzMAXďpZq contains

a maximum pb then clearly K 1 Ď ZzMAXďpZq “ pbs. If ZzMAXďpZq contains no maximumthen we can write

ZzMAXďpZq “ď

bPZzMAXďpZq

bq

so that the sets bq, where b P ZzMAXďpZq, form in particular an open cover of K 1. Dueto the compactness of K 1 there are finitely many b1, . . . , bn P ZzMAXďpZq with

K 1 Ďnď

i“1

biq.

Denoting the largest of the bi with b we hence have K 1 Ď Ťni“1 biq Ď bs.

Detail 11. The subspaces X1 ` W1 and pXK1 X WK

1 q have trivial intersection: Writing anarbitrarily chosen x P pX1 ` W1q X XK

1 X WK1 in the form x “ x1 ` w1 with some x1 P X1

and w1 P W1 we get xx, x1y “ 0 and xx, w1y “ 0. Addition gives xx, xy “ 0 and hencex “ 0.

Detail 12. For real-valued functions F1,ĂF1 : X1 Ñ R Y t`8u, F2,ĂF2 : X2 Ñ R Y t`8uwith F1 ZF2 “ ĂF1 ZĂF2 there is a constant C P R such that F1 “ ĂF1 `C and F2 “ ĂF2 ´C:For all x1 P X1 and x2 P X2 we have F1px1q ` F2px2q “ ĂF1px1q ` ĂF2px2q. Since only finite

values occur we can rearrange the latter and obtain F1px1q´ĂF1px1q “ ĂF2px2q´F2px2q for all

x1 P X1 and x2 P X2. In particular the functions F1´ĂF1 : X1 Ñ R and ĂF2´F2 : X2 Ñ R areconstant on X1 and X2, respectively; by the previous equality, they take the same constantvalue. Denoting this value by “C” we are done.

Detail 13. If one of the functions F1, F2,ĂF1,ĂF2 takes the value `8 there is no guaranteethat, e.g. F2 and ĂF2 differ merely by a real constant; consider for instance the functionsF1 “ ĂF1 ” `8 on X1. Then F1 ZF2 “ ĂF1 ZĂF2 for any functions F2,ĂF2 : X2 Ñ RYt`8u.

Detail 14. Both F1 and G1 are bounded below: Let } ¨ }2 be the Euclidean norm in Rn.After setting

pX, } ¨ }q – pX1, } ¨ }2|X1q pZ,ďq – pp´8,`8s,ďp´8,`8sq

142

with the natural ordering ďp´8,`8s on p´8,`8s we can apply Theorem 3.1.7 to F1 :

pX, } ¨ }q Ñ pZ,ďq and obtain that F1 is bounded from below. Likewise we see that also G1

is bounded below.

Detail 15. Without loss of generality, we may assume X1 “ XK2 , Y1 “ Y K

2 and Z1 “ ZK2 ;

otherwise we can replace

F1 by ĂF1 “ F1 ˝ πX1,X2|XK

2,

G1 by ĂG1 “ G1 ˝ πY1,Y2|Y K2,

H1 by ĂH1 “ H1 ˝ πZ1,Z2|ZK

2,

and continue the proof with theses new functions instead of the original functions due tothe following three reasons:

i) The assumptions on F1, G1 carry over to ĂF1,ĂG1: Using part i) of Lemma 3.2.4 wesee that the new functions differ from the original functions merely by bijective lin-ear transformations of their image domains. Since the involved spaces are of finitedimension these linear bijections are even homeomorphisms. In particular the locallyboundedness assumption on the original functions carries over to the new functions.Also the coercivity assumption on the original functions carries over to the new func-tions by part i) of Lemma 3.3.3.

ii) H stays unchanged when replacing the old function by the new ones: part i) of Lemma

3.3.3 gives F1 Z 0X2“ ĂF1 Z 0X2

and G1 Z 0X2“ ĂG1 Z 0X2

so that

H “ pF1 Z 0X2q ` pG1 Z 0Y2q

“ pĂF1 Z 0X2q ` pĂG1 Z 0Y2q

iii) After proving the coercivity of ĂH1 also the coercivity of H1 would follow: Using partsii) and i) of Lemma 3.3.3 we can rewrite H in the form

H “ H1 Z 0Z2“ ĂH1 Z 0Z2

so that part i) of Lemma 3.3.3 ensures that ĂH1 is coercive iff H1 is coercive.

Detail 16. H“ is a hyperplane in U “ affpdomΨq: The subspace H“ – H“p,α X U is of

dimension dimH“ “ dimH“p,α ` dimU ´ dimpU ` H“

p,αq P n ´ 1 ` dimU ´ tn, n ´ 1u “tdimU, dimU ´ 1u. The set H“

p,α does not completely contain S; consequently H“ ĎH“p,α can not completely contain affpdomΨq Ě S all the more, so that only dimH“ “

dimpaffpdomΨqq ´ 1 can be true. Therefore H“ is a hyperplane in affpdomΨq.

Detail 17. For α P p0, 12q we have }∇gαpzpkqq}2 Ñ `8 as k Ñ `8 for any sequence

pzpkqqkPN in Q, converging to some boundary point zp8q of Q: Since all norms in R2 are

143


equivalent it suffices to show }∇gαpzpkqq}8 Ñ `8. We have ∇gαpzq “ ´αzα´11 zα´1

2 pz2, z1qTfor all z P Q, so that }∇gαpzq}8 “ αzα´1

1 zα´12 maxtz2, z1u for these z. In case zp8q “ p0, 0qT

we thus have for α P p0, 12q the estimate

}∇gαpzpkqq}8 ě αrmaxtzpkq1 , z

pkq2 usα´1rmaxtzpkq

1 , zpkq2 usα´1maxtzpkq

1 , zpkq2 u

“ αrmaxtzpkq1 , z

pkq2 us2α´1 Ñ `8

as k Ñ `8. In case zp8q “ p0, 0q we may assume, due to symmetry reasons, zp8q1 “ 0 and

zp8q2 ą 0 without loss of generality. We then obtain

}∇gαpzpkqq}8 “ rzpkq1 sα´1pαrzpkq

2 sα´1maxtzpkq2 , z

pkq1 uq Ñ `8

as k Ñ `8, even for α P p0, 1q.

Detail 18. The functions f and g are bounded from below: If, say f , was not bounded frombelow there would be a sequence pukqkPN in the compact level set levαpfq with fpukq Ñ ´8for k Ñ `8. However, after choosing a subsequence which converges to some u P levαpfqwe had fpuq “ ´8, by the lower semicontinuity of f . But this would mean that f is notproper – a contradicition.

Detail 19. All assumptions of part iii) of Lemma 4.3.18 are fulfilled for F – Φ, U1 –

X1 ‘ X3, U2 – X2 and G – ιlevτ }L¨}, V1 – RpL˚q, V2 – N pLq, for appropriately chosenα and β:

‚ U2 X V2 “ t0u holds true, beeing an assumption of the current theorem.

‚ domFXdomG “ domΦXlevτ}L ¨ } “ H: Each neighborhood of 0 P domF intersectsdomF . Since τ ą 0 ensures 0 P intplevτ}L ¨ }q we thus have in particular for thisneighborhood H “ domF X intplevτ}L ¨ }q Ď domF X levτ}L ¨ }.

‚ levαpF |U1q is nonempty and bounded for an α P R: Denoting the unique minimizer

of the strictly convex function φ “ Φ|X1by x and setting α – φpxq we see that

levαpF |U1q “ levαpφq ‘ t0u “ txu is nonempty and bounded.

‚ Finally levβpG|V1q is nonempty and bounded for any β ě 0, since G|V1 is a norm– namely the norm on V1, which makes pV1, G|V1q isometrically isomorph to pRpLq,} ¨ }|RpLqq, by virtue of the bijection L|RpL˚q : RpL˚q Ñ RpLq.

Detail 20. All assumptions of part iii) of Lemma 4.3.18 are fulfilled for U1 – X1 ‘ X3,U2 – X2, V1 – RpL˚q, V2 – N pLq and F – ιargminpΦq, G – }L ¨ }, for appropriate choiceof α and β:

‚ F , G are in Γ0pRnq and have the needed translation invariance.

‚ U2 X V2 “ t0u holds true, beeing an assumption of the current theorem.

144

‚ levαpF |U1q is nonempty and bounded for an α: Denoting the unique minimizer of φ

with x1 we have argminΦ “ tx1u ‘ X2 Ď X1 ‘ X2. For α – F px1q “ 0 the setlevαpF |U1

q “ tx1u is then obviously nonempty and bounded.

‚ Finally levβpG|V1q is nonempty and bounded for any β ě 0, since G|V1 is a norm– namely the norm on V1, which makes pV1, G|V1q isometrically isomorph to pRpLq,} ¨ }|RpLqq, by virtue of the bijection L|RpL˚q : RpL˚q Ñ RpLq.

Detail 21. d “ 0 ô argminΦ X N pLq “ H : Using Fermat’s Rule, see [19, p. 264, l.8]; 0 P ripdomΦ˚q, see part iii) in Lemma 4.4.1, in order to apply the chain rule, see [19,Theorem 23.9] and x P BΦ˚px˚q ô x˚ P BΦpxq, see [19, Corollary 23.5.1] we obtain

d “ 0 ô 0 P argminΦ˚p´L˚¨qô 0 P BrΦ˚p´L˚¨qs|0ô 0 P ´LBΦ˚p´L˚0qô Dx P R

n : x P BΦ˚p0q ^ 0 “ ´Lxô Dx P R

n : 0 P BΦpxq ^ x P N pLqô argminΦ X N pLq “ H.

Detail 22. There is a decomposition affpdomF q “ AF ‘ PF such that PF is a subspace ofP rF s and such that F is strictly convex on intApdomF |Aq: We set E “ Φ˚ : Rn Ñ R Yt`8u, Mp¨q “ ´L˚¨. Note now that 0 P ripdomEqXRpMq and that affpdomEq “ X1‘X3,where X3 is a subspace of P rEs, by Lemma 4.4.1, and where E “ Φ˚ is strictly convexon intX1

pdomΦ˚|X1q “ ripdomΦ˚|X1

q, since it is even essentially strictly convex on X1

by Lemma 4.4.1. Thus we can use Theorem 4.3.16 and obtain that affpdomF q can bedecomposed in the claimed way.

Detail 23. The functions F p¨q “ Φp´L˚¨q and Gp¨q “ τ} ¨ }˚ fulfill the assumptionsof Theorem 4.3.21: Due to 0 “ ´L˚0 P ripdomΦ˚q and domΦ˚ “ X1 ‘ X3 we seethat Theorem 4.3.16 can be applied to E “ Φ˚ and Mp¨q “ ´L˚¨. Thereby we get adecomposition affpdomF q “ A ‘ P of affpdomF q — A into a vector subspace P of theperiods space P rF s and an affine subspace A Ď Rn such that F is strictly convex onintApdomF |Aq. Furthermore F is essentially smooth on A by Theorem 4.3.12.

Detail 24. The assumptions of Theorem 4.3.21 are fulfilled for F “ Φ and Gp¨q “ λ}L ¨}: Clearly F and G are convex functions with ripdomF q X ripdomGq “ H. Moreoverthe decomposition affpdomF q “ X1 ‘ X2, or rather their components, have the neededproperties by our setting’s assumptions: X2 is a subspace of P rF s, F is strictly convex onintX1

pdomF |X1q “ ripdomF |X1

q “ H, and lastly F is essentially smooth on X1.

Detail 25. f is again proper, convex, lower semicontinuous and essentially smooth: f isproper since Φ — F is proper and because fp1q “ F pxq ă `8. Moreover f also inheritsconvexity and lower semicontinuity from F . Finally f is essentially smooth: Part ii) ofLemma B.6 gives x P argminF Ď ripdomF q, so that Theorem 4.3.12 can be applied to

145


E “ F and Mp¨q “ ¨x, giving the essentially smoothness of f “ F ˝M on affpdom fq “ R;note for the last equality – in the nontrivial case x “ 0 – the above x P ripdomF q and oursetting assumption 0 P domF .

Detail 26. The function g, given by gpτq – }p}˚ with any p P SOLpD1,τ q, τ P p0, cqis well defined, since SOLpD1,τ q “ H and since Theorem 4.3.21 ensures }p}˚ “ }q}˚

for any other q P SOLpD1,τ q: Consider F p¨q “ Φp´L˚¨q and Gp¨q “ τ} ¨ }˚. Due to0 “ ´L˚0 P ripdomΦ˚q and domΦ˚ “ X1 ‘X3 we see that Theorem 4.3.16 can be appliedto E “ Φ˚ and Mp¨q “ ´L˚¨. Thereby we get a decomposition affpdomF q “ A ‘ P ofaffpdomF q — A into a vector subspace P of the periods space P rF s and an affine subspaceA Ď Rn such that F is strictly convex on intApdomF |Aq. We may assume without loss ofgenerality that A is a vector subspace as well, since 0 P A. Furthermore F is essentiallysmooth on A by Theorem 4.3.12 and even on A by Lemma 4.3.11. Theorem 4.3.21 canthus be applied, giving τ}p}˚ “ Gppq “ Gpqq “ τ}q}˚. Since τ “ 0 we get the claimed}p}˚ “ }q}˚.

Detail 27. }p}˚ ă d : Theorem 4.2.6 ii) ensures p P SOLpD2,}p}˚q; hence we musthave }p}˚ ă d since the assumption }p}˚ ě d would imply, by Theorem 4.4.4, that p PSOLpD2,}p}q Ď argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q, resulting in p P SOLpD1,τ q X argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q. This con-tradicts the relation SOLpD1,τ q X argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q “ H from Theorem 4.4.4 which holdssince τ P p0, cq.

Detail 28. The function f , given by fpλq – }Lx} with any x P SOLpP2,λq, λ P p0, dq, iswell defined, since SOLpP2,λq “ H and since Theorem 4.3.21 ensures }Lx} “ }Lx} for anyother x P SOLpP2,λq: For F “ Φ and Gp¨q “ λ}L ¨ } all assumptions of Theorem 4.3.21 arefulfilled; note herein that F and G are convex functions with ripdomF q X ripdomGq “ Hand that the decomposition affpdomF q “ X1‘X2 fits to the assumptions of Theorem 4.3.21:X2 is a subspace of P rF s and F is strictly convex on intX1

pdomF |X1q “ ripdomF |X1

q “ H.Lastly F is essentially smooth on X1. Applying Theorem 4.3.21 gives now λ}Lx} “ Gpxq “Gpxq “ λ}Lx} and hence the claimed }Lx} “ }Lx}.

Detail 29. }Lx} ă c : Theorem 4.2.6 ii) ensures x P SOLpP1,}Lx}q; so we must have }Lx} ăc, since the assumption }Lx} ě c would imply, by Theorem 4.4.4, that x P SOLpP1,}Lx}q ĎargminΦ, resulting in x P SOLpP2,λqXargminΦ. This contradicts the relation SOLpP2,λqXargminΦ “ H from Theorem 4.4.4 which holds since λ P p0, dq.

Detail 30. The equations

SOLpP1,τ q X SOLpP1,τ 1q “ H,

SOLpD2,λq X SOLpD2,λ1q “ H

hold true for all distinct τ, τ 1 P p0, cq and all distinct λ, λ1 P p0, dq, respectively: If therewere e.g. distinct λ, λ1 P p0, dq with, say λ ă λ1, such that there would be a p P SOLpD2,λqXSOLpD2,λ1q we had }p}˚ ď λ ă λ1 and p P argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q subject to } ¨ }˚ ď λ1, so that pwould be a local minimizer of Φ˚p´L˚¨q. Hence, p P argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q, by the convexity of

146

Φ˚p´L˚¨q. This, however, contradicts argminΦ˚p´L˚¨q X SOLpD2,λ1q “ H, which holds byTheorem 4.4.4 since λ1 P p0, dq. The proof of the other equation is done just analogously.

Detail 31. For an arbitrarily chosen λ P p0, dq and λ1 – gpfpλqq we have λ “ λ1: Using(4.25) and (4.24) with τ “ fpλq yields

SOLpP2,λq Ď SOLpP1,fpλqq Ď SOLpP2,λ1q,SOLpD2,λq Ď SOLpD1,fpλqq Ď SOLpD2,λ1q

Since SOLpD2,λq “ H we must have λ “ λ1, in order to avoid a contradiction to (4.30).

Detail 32. Lemma A.2 implies infh1PX1XS1,h2PX2XS1xh1, h2y ą ´1 by the following reason:By this lemma there is a constant C ě 1 ą 0 such that 1

C2 }h1}22 ď }h1 ` h2}22 “ }h1}22 `}h2}22 ` 2xh1, h2y for all h1 P X1 and h2 P X2. For h1 P X1 XS1 and h2 P X2 XS1 we obtainin particular xh1, h2y ě 1

2r 1C2 ´1´1s “ ´1` 1

2C2 — γ, so that infh1PX1XS1,h2PX2XS1xh1, h2y ěγ ą ´1 holds indeed true.

147

Bibliography

[1] J. M. Bardsley and J. Goldes. Regularization parameter selection methods for ill-posedPoisson maximum likelihood estimation. Inverse Problems, 25(9):095005, 2009.

[2] H. H. Bauschke and P. L. Combettes. Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theoryin Hilbert Spaces. Springer, New York, 2011.

[3] J. Borwein. Convex Analysis and Nonlinear Optimization. Springer, New York, 2000.

[4] A. M. Bruckner, B. S. Thomson, and J. B. Bruckner. Elementary Real Analysis. Clas-sicalRealAnalysis.com, 2008.

[5] R. Ciak, B. Shafei, and G. Steidl. Homogeneous penalizers and constraints in conveximage restoration. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 47(3):210–230, 2013.

[6] G. Dal Maso. An Introduction to Gamma-Convergence. Birkhäuser, Boston, 1993.

[7] I. Daubechies, M. Fornasier, and I. Loris. Accelerated projected gradient methods forlinear inverse problems with sparsity constraints. The Journal of Fourier Analysis andApplications, 14(5-6):764–792, 2008.

[8] F. Facchinei and J. Pang. Finite-Dimensional Variational Inequalities and Comple-mentarity Problems, volume 1 of Finite-dimensional Variational Inequalities and Com-plementarity Problems. Springer, 2003.

[9] M. A. Figueiredo and J. M. Bioucas-Dias. Deconvolution of Poissonian images usingvariable splitting and augmented lagrangian optimization. In Statistical Signal Pro-cessing, 2009. SSP’09. IEEE/SP 15th Workshop on, pages 733–736. IEEE, 2009.

[10] G. Gierz, K. H. Hofmann, K. Keimel, J. D. Lawson, M. Mislove, and D. S. Scott.Continuous Lattices and Domains. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

[11] M. Hanke and P. C. Hansen. Regularization methods for large-scale problems. Surv.Math. Ind, 3(4):253–315, 1993.

[12] J.-B. Hiriart-Urruty and C. Lemarechal. Convex Analysis and Minimization Algo-rithms, volume 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1993.

149

Bibliography

[13] E. Ivar and T. Roger. Convex Analysis and Variational Problems. Society for Industrialand Applied Mathematics, 1999.

[14] K. Jänich. Topologie. Springer, Berlin, 2. corr. repr. of 8. edition.

[15] J. L. Kelley. General Topology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1955.

[16] D. A. Lorenz. Constructing test instances for basis pursuit denoising. Technical report,TU Braunschweig, 2011. http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.2897.

[17] J. R. Munkres. Topology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1975.

[18] M. K. Ng, P. Weiss, and X. Yuan. Solving constrained total-variation image restora-tion and reconstruction problems via alternating direction methods. SIAM journal onScientific Computing, 32(5):2710–2736, 2010.

[19] R. T. Rockafellar. Convex Analysis. Princeton Univ. Press, 10. print. edition, 1970.

[20] R. T. Rockafellar and R. J.-B. Wets. Variational Analysis, volume 317 of A Series ofComprehensive Studies in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 2 edition, 2004.

[21] D. Scott. Continuous lattices. In F. Lawvere, editor, Toposes, Algebraic Geometryand Logic, volume 274 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 97–136. Springer BerlinHeidelberg, 1972.

[22] L. A. Steen and J. A. Seebach. Counterexamples in Topology. Springer, New York, 2.ed. edition, 1978.

[23] G. Steidl and T. Teuber. Removing multiplicative noise by Douglas-Rachford splittingmethods. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 36(2):168–184, 2010.

[24] T. Teuber, G. Steidl, and R. H. Chan. Minimization and parameter estimationfor seminorm regularization models with I-divergence constraints. Inverse Problems,29(3):035007, 2013.

[25] E. van den Berg and M. P. Friedlander. Probing the pareto frontier for basis pursuitsolutions. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 31(2):890–912, 2008.

[26] E. van den Berg and M. P. Friedlander. Sparse optimization with least-squares con-straints. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 21(4):1201–1229, 2011.

[27] B. von Querenburg. Mengentheoretische Topologie. Springer, Berlin, 3. revised andext. edition, 2001.

[28] G. Wahba. Spline Models for Observational Data. SIAM, 1990.

[29] P. Weiss, L. Blanc-Féraud, and G. Aubert. Efficient schemes for total variation min-imization under constraints in image processing. SIAM Journal on Imaging Science,3:2047–2080, 2009.

150

[30] Y.-W. Wen and R. H. Chan. Parameter selection for total-variation-based imagerestoration using discrepancy principle. Image Processing, IEEE Transactions on,21(4):1770–1781, 2012.

[31] Wikipedia. Coercive function — wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2013. [Available on-line at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coercive_function&oldid=544655808 ; visited on 10-April-2013].

[32] Wikipedia. Ordnungstopologie — wikipedia, die freie enzyklopädie,2013. [Available online at http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=

Ordnungstopologie&oldid=123685027; visited on 25-January-2014].

[33] C. Zălinescu. Convex Analysis in General Vector Spaces. World Scientific, 2002.

Own publication

[CiShSt2012] R. Ciak, B. Shafei, and G. Steidl Homogeneous penalizers and con-straints in convex image restoration. Journal of Mathematical Imagingand Vision, 47(3):210–230, 2013, published online October 2012.

151

Wissenschaftlicher Werdegang

06/2001 HochschulreifeMatthias-Grünewald-Gymnasium, Tauberbischofsheim

10/2001 - 12/2009 Studium der Physik und MathematikJulius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg

12/2009 Diplom in MathematikDiplomarbeit: Eine Variationsmethode für die Koebefunktion

01/2010 - 03/2010 Teilnahme an mehreren KursenRechenzentrum, Universität Würzburg

04/2010 - 07/2010 Nebenberuflicher wissenschaftlicher MitarbeiterFakultät für Mathematik und Informatik, Universität Würzburg

08/2010 - 03/2011 PraktikumFraunhofer ITWM, Kaiserslautern

ab 04/2011 Doktorand (Dissputation am 9. Oktober 2014)Fachbereich Mathematik, TU Kaiserslautern

Scientific Career

06/2001 University entrance qualificationMatthias-Grünewald-Gymnasium, Tauberbischofsheim

10/2001 - 12/2009 Undergraduate studies in Physics and MathematicsJulius Maximilians University of Würzburg

12/2009 Diploma in MathematicsDiploma thesis: Eine Variationsmethode für die Koebefunktion

01/2010 - 03/2010 Participation in ceveral coursesComputer center, University of Würzburg

04/2010 - 07/2010 Teaching AssistantshipDepartement of Mathematics and Computer Science, University ofWürzburg

08/2010 - 03/2011 InternshipFraunhofer ITWM, Kaiserslautern

from 04/2011 Ph. D. student (PhD thesis defense on October 9, 2014)Fachbereich Mathematik, TU Kaiserslautern

152

Danksagung

Ganz vielen Dank möchte ich zuallererst meiner Yoga–Lehrerin Susanne sagen. Wer weiß,ob oder wie ich die Zeit auf der anderen Straßenseite gegenüber, überstanden hätte, wennich nicht das Glück gehabt hätte, daß gerade sie im Unisport Yoga Vidya unterrichtet.Vielen Dank Susanne für die Gelegenheiten und Hilfestellungen auf Nahes und doch manch-mal so Weites aufmerksam und achtsam(er) zu werden.

Herzlichen Dank hier auch nochmal an Hemmi-Maria Schaar, dafür daß sie mich auf daswertvolle Buch “Haben oder Sein” aufmerksam gemacht hat, an Jessica Borsche für ihre,in “Amtsstuben” nicht selbstverständlich anzutreffende, freundliche und hilfsbereite Art,an meine Eltern für mannigfache Unterstützungen, besonders bei Umzügen und als ichim Krankenhaus war und für die Wochen danach. Hier auch vielen lieben Dank an meinSchwesterherz, insbesondere fürs Beantworten so vieler Fragen.

Danke auch an alle, die die Zeit meines Doktorandendaseins bereichert haben. Besondersan Andreas, Micha, Elmi, Sarah, Maria, Jin Yu, Sophie, Lena und Jochen. Sarah und Lenavielen Dank für die vielen schönen und liebevollen Karten. Insbesondere Maria, Jochenund Andreas, sowie meinen Eltern, vielen Dank auch dafür, daß sie durch ihr Sein undSosein erkennbar machten, daß gewisse idealistische Grundeinstellungen der Erosion zutrotzen vermögen auch heutzutage noch.

Danke an Martin für Aufmunterungen und gute berufliche und private Gespräche und fürsehr viele gute Vorschläge, an Friederike für ihre Hilfe und Vorschläge zur Verbesserungder Einleitung sowie für gute Gespräche beruflicher wie privater Natur. Beiden undmeinem Schwesterherz vielen Dank, daß sie ihre guten Englischkenntnisse mit mir teil-ten und halfen an vielen und wichtigen Stellen, den Text besser werden zu lassen. FürVerbesserungsvorschläge hier auch nochmal herzlichen Dank an meinen Freund Elmi.

Danke an Gabi, für die Momente in denen wir beide ganz Mensch waren, und ebenfalls fürdie Stellen, welche ich sah und welche, die ich nicht wahrnahm oder wahrnehme, an denensie sich für mich einsetzte. Danke auch für die vielen Korrektur- und Verbesserungsvorschlägefür die Diss.

Ein Dankeschön für die Bereitschaft meine Dissertation zu begutachten geht jeweils anGabi und an ihre Kollegin Frau Professorin Gerlind Plonka-Hoch.

Für ihre Hilfsbereitschaft danke ich Kirsten, Tobi, Nico und Jin Yu – auch für, obwohl odervielleicht vielmehr weil ich zu vielen Zeiten nicht in der Lage war ihn (immer) zu sehen,den Korb mit den wunderbaren Sachen.

Für Hilfe bei Latex–Fragen möchte ich vielen Danke sagen – neben zahlreichen Bloggern,die ihr Wissen mit anderen teilten, besonders Behrang, Tanja, Sören und Ronny. Ihnen,Stanislav und Jan und den verbleibenden heutigen oder ehemaligen Gruppenmitgliedern,auch der anderer AG’s vielen Dank für gute Momente und Zeiten beruflicher wie privaterNatur. Tanja hier nochmal ein herzliches Dankeschön für ihren Hinweis auf die Klamm imKarlstal bei Trippstadt.

Some remarks to the thesis

Between the preceding thesis and the “vorgelegte Dissertation” there are some minor dif-ferences. When handing in the “vorgelegte Dissertation” the “Summary” and the “Zusam-menfassung” were printed on separate pages outside of the thesis, whereas here they wereincluded inside the thesis itself. Moreover Typos, obvious small local errors and certaininconsequencies in notation were corrected. In particular the zerovector of the Euclideanspace Rn should now everywhere be denoted by 0 (with exception for n “ 1 where thenotation 0 might be used).

We finally note that an electronic version of this work is available via ArXive, seehttp://arxiv.org/a/ciak_r_1

The reader may want to check this webpage also for Erata / Update (maybe additionallycontaining a new space concept, which was not yet developed enough to be included in the“vorgelegte Dissertation”)

155

arXiv · arXiv:1506.08615v1 [math.OC] 23 Jun 2015 Vom Fachbereich Mathematik der Technischen...

Documents

Transcript of arXiv · arXiv:1506.08615v1 [math.OC] 23 Jun 2015 Vom Fachbereich Mathematik der Technischen...